Well, it was 2016 all over again today.
August 9, 2024 1:55 PM Subscribe
Lawrence O'Donnell delivers a scathing rebuke of the media's failure to hold Trump accountable for his lies and non-answers given throughout his recent hour-long press conference at Mar-A-Lago.
O'Donnell also criticizes the media for their contrasting, combative behavior toward the Biden White House, and calls out the networks for failing to carry Kamala Harris' speech to the UAW, even though there was plenty of notice and opportunity to do so. Yes, it's a single-link video post, but it's 24 minutes of very important commentary.
O'Donnell also criticizes the media for their contrasting, combative behavior toward the Biden White House, and calls out the networks for failing to carry Kamala Harris' speech to the UAW, even though there was plenty of notice and opportunity to do so. Yes, it's a single-link video post, but it's 24 minutes of very important commentary.
It’s really just mind-boggling how obvious it’s become
posted by gottabefunky at 2:06 PM on August 9 [24 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 2:06 PM on August 9 [24 favorites]
Personal pet-peeve -- refusal is not "failure." Failing implies that they are even trying.
posted by Pedantzilla at 2:06 PM on August 9 [32 favorites]
posted by Pedantzilla at 2:06 PM on August 9 [32 favorites]
"A lie is not an answer."
posted by Catblack at 2:07 PM on August 9 [24 favorites]
posted by Catblack at 2:07 PM on August 9 [24 favorites]
The section from 7:45 to 10' or so, when he contrasts the press's tameness with Trump to the shouting and yelling the press does with Biden and his press secretary, who has to ask an interrupting reporter for "a little respect here," is really powerful.
posted by mediareport at 2:35 PM on August 9 [45 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 2:35 PM on August 9 [45 favorites]
That discrepancy is so dramatic. In the case of Donald Trump, is there a threat to lose access to future conferences if the journalists do not respect an implicit protocol ?
posted by nicolin at 3:03 PM on August 9 [5 favorites]
posted by nicolin at 3:03 PM on August 9 [5 favorites]
That discrepancy is so dramatic.
It's outrageous! Clearly, some force inhibits the journalists covering TFG.
posted by Rash at 3:24 PM on August 9 [4 favorites]
It's outrageous! Clearly, some force inhibits the journalists covering TFG.
posted by Rash at 3:24 PM on August 9 [4 favorites]
So much this. The lack of true reporting instead of insipid opinions masquerading as analysis is nauseating. Why Donald Trump has been given such a pass by the media AGAIN is beyond me except that because he is so outrageous the news outlets get their 'click' quota. The NYT front page after the 'debate' without a single word about Trump's lies was such a disgrace. Yay for Lawrence Odonnell speaking truth to power, in this case the media.
posted by bluesky43 at 3:42 PM on August 9 [15 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 3:42 PM on August 9 [15 favorites]
They're fucking cowards, yet I can't really blame them, their ability to eat and put a roof over their head is at stake. Their corporate overlords have probably suggested as such and with the media elite (I'm talking the owners now) pretty much marching in lock step, anyone who steps out of bounds has the fear of being black balled. If your nice and upper middle class with a couple of kids and a spouse to depend on you, what are your options?
It's all well and good for me, with no one to support to say what I believe, another thing entirely when you have a family to worry about.
posted by evilDoug at 3:56 PM on August 9 [1 favorite]
It's all well and good for me, with no one to support to say what I believe, another thing entirely when you have a family to worry about.
posted by evilDoug at 3:56 PM on August 9 [1 favorite]
Sure but if you watch the video you can see that their subservient behavior is only towards trump, and Odonnell does a magnificent comparison with the way the press treated Biden and his press secretary. disgraceful.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:00 PM on August 9 [6 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 4:00 PM on August 9 [6 favorites]
I appreciated this comment by logicpunk from an earlier thread on this:
"someone smarter than me at politics noted that the media love criticizing democrats because democrats actually respond to criticisms by defending themselves or changing their behavior, and that makes the media feel like they are Important People Who Matter, and that feels good for the media, so the media continues to criticize democrats.
republicans respond to criticisms from the media either by ignoring them, which makes the media people feel small and unimportant, or by attacking the media right back, which makes the media feel threatened and defensive. the media doesn't like either of these things, so the media doesn't criticize republicans."
posted by gingerbeer at 4:05 PM on August 9 [138 favorites]
"someone smarter than me at politics noted that the media love criticizing democrats because democrats actually respond to criticisms by defending themselves or changing their behavior, and that makes the media feel like they are Important People Who Matter, and that feels good for the media, so the media continues to criticize democrats.
republicans respond to criticisms from the media either by ignoring them, which makes the media people feel small and unimportant, or by attacking the media right back, which makes the media feel threatened and defensive. the media doesn't like either of these things, so the media doesn't criticize republicans."
posted by gingerbeer at 4:05 PM on August 9 [138 favorites]
the source of that particular insight was gin and tacos (né ed burmila) who wrote a book about why democrats are consistently fucked called 'chaotic neutral' which is super depressing if you're into that sort of thing
posted by logicpunk at 4:13 PM on August 9 [33 favorites]
posted by logicpunk at 4:13 PM on August 9 [33 favorites]
I'd guess the majority are upper-middle class (especially once you get to White House reporter level) white folks who basically agree with Trump's policies. Plus his word salad and madness and confusion between 'asylum' and 'insane asylums' and now frequent comments about Hannibal Lecter is 'no longer news', where 'news' is something that was previously unknown. They like the guy, for the chaos he creates, the news events he creates, etc.
posted by The_Vegetables at 4:15 PM on August 9 [3 favorites]
posted by The_Vegetables at 4:15 PM on August 9 [3 favorites]
Certainly the last eight years have punched a ton of holes in the chestnut that the health of democracy depends on a vigorous news ecosystem. I mean, still maybe? But it feels like they’ve spent as much time carrying water for fascists.
posted by ryanshepard at 4:24 PM on August 9 [11 favorites]
posted by ryanshepard at 4:24 PM on August 9 [11 favorites]
That was beautiful. Probably the most honest piece of network journalism I've seen in years.
posted by doctor_negative at 4:29 PM on August 9 [9 favorites]
posted by doctor_negative at 4:29 PM on August 9 [9 favorites]
I hate it, but there is a nagging ring of truth to the idea that in modern profit-driven news, Donald Trump drove more Americans into desperate, almost frantic grasping at the 24-hour news cycle than any boring mainstream politician could hope to. News viewership is down under Biden simply because he isn’t a walking disaster, while stories about Trump still draw views because oh what the fuck now.
If there existed a big red “end everything” button, doubtless it would be better for news ratings if a madman were hovering his finger over that button. They’d have a nonstop “button-cam” livestream, and “Breaking News” every quarter-hour as the finger drew each millimeter closer. Yet we still seem to hope that somehow there is enough sanity left that those same news outlets would not actively try to put the madman in front of the button just for the audience metrics. Nobody, we assume, could be that stupid.
I do not have any such hope anymore. I think they are that stupid.
The New York Times Sells More Papers Under Looming Dictatorship: Here’s Why That’s Bad For Harris
posted by gelfin at 4:40 PM on August 9 [57 favorites]
If there existed a big red “end everything” button, doubtless it would be better for news ratings if a madman were hovering his finger over that button. They’d have a nonstop “button-cam” livestream, and “Breaking News” every quarter-hour as the finger drew each millimeter closer. Yet we still seem to hope that somehow there is enough sanity left that those same news outlets would not actively try to put the madman in front of the button just for the audience metrics. Nobody, we assume, could be that stupid.
I do not have any such hope anymore. I think they are that stupid.
The New York Times Sells More Papers Under Looming Dictatorship: Here’s Why That’s Bad For Harris
posted by gelfin at 4:40 PM on August 9 [57 favorites]
Yeah.
I actually emailed the tipline at CNN and asked when they would discuss the names on the Epstein list.
No response.
Jesus Wept.
posted by dfm500 at 4:52 PM on August 9 [4 favorites]
I actually emailed the tipline at CNN and asked when they would discuss the names on the Epstein list.
No response.
Jesus Wept.
posted by dfm500 at 4:52 PM on August 9 [4 favorites]
there is a nagging ring of truth to the idea that in modern profit-driven news,
"if it bleeds it leads" is as old as profit driven news, I suspect. And a quick google reveals the quote goes to William Randolph Hearts himself (1890s).
So yeah, this is hardly a new monster we're dealing with. But times and communication patterns change. With The News now a twenty-four-seven audio-visual monster, it demands an ever bleeding wound. Which is Trump in a nutshell, I guess.
posted by philip-random at 4:56 PM on August 9 [5 favorites]
"if it bleeds it leads" is as old as profit driven news, I suspect. And a quick google reveals the quote goes to William Randolph Hearts himself (1890s).
So yeah, this is hardly a new monster we're dealing with. But times and communication patterns change. With The News now a twenty-four-seven audio-visual monster, it demands an ever bleeding wound. Which is Trump in a nutshell, I guess.
posted by philip-random at 4:56 PM on August 9 [5 favorites]
On the other hand, I bet people would tune in to stuff that makes them feel good and hopeful, especially after years of grim bad news. The Kennedy years were called Camelot, because people had hope (somewhat misplaced, but still) after years of war privation and aimless sterility. After 8 years of dread and settling, don’t you think people would pay to see something nice and positive rather than more angry, resentful men with little to be angry or resentful
About?
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:21 PM on August 9 [5 favorites]
About?
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:21 PM on August 9 [5 favorites]
The Trump to NY Times translator.
The NYTimes has so far been a stenographer for the Trump campaign, reprinting his statements verbatim. Unclear why a translator would be needed.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:28 PM on August 9 [10 favorites]
The NYTimes has so far been a stenographer for the Trump campaign, reprinting his statements verbatim. Unclear why a translator would be needed.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:28 PM on August 9 [10 favorites]
Certainly the last eight years have punched a ton of holes in the chestnut that the health of democracy depends on a vigorous news ecosystem. I mean, still maybe? But it feels like they’ve spent as much time carrying water for fascists.
I'd argue the opposite, with the same reasoning: the health of democracy does depend on a vigorous news ecosystem, and the dearth of one is a strong indicator that democracy is failing.
posted by Mayor West at 5:34 PM on August 9 [27 favorites]
I'd argue the opposite, with the same reasoning: the health of democracy does depend on a vigorous news ecosystem, and the dearth of one is a strong indicator that democracy is failing.
posted by Mayor West at 5:34 PM on August 9 [27 favorites]
The shit Trump has gotten away with his entire life without ever being truly held accountable is mind-boggling, but seems so apropos of the times we live in, and the station to which he was born.
I probably posted about this film before because I found it to be really well done: Recorder.
"Marion Stokes was secretly recording television twenty-four hours a day for thirty years. It started in 1979 with the Iranian Hostage Crisis at the dawn of the twenty-four hour news cycle. It ended on December 14, 2012 while the Sandy Hook massacre played on television as Marion passed away. In between, Marion recorded on 70,000 VHS tapes, capturing revolutions, lies, wars, triumphs, catastrophes, bloopers, talk shows, and commercials that tell us who we were, and show how television shaped the world of today.
Before “fake news” Marion was fighting to protect the truth by archiving everything that was said and shown on television. The public didn’t know it, but the networks were disposing their archives for decades into the trashcan of history. Remarkably Marion saved it, and now the Internet Archive will digitize her tapes and we’ll be able to search them online for free.
This is a mystery in the form of a time capsule. It’s about a radical Communist activist, who became a fabulously wealthy recluse archivist. Her work was crazy but it was also genius, and she would pay a profound price for dedicating her life to this visionary and maddening project."
posted by nikoniko at 5:45 PM on August 9 [57 favorites]
I probably posted about this film before because I found it to be really well done: Recorder.
"Marion Stokes was secretly recording television twenty-four hours a day for thirty years. It started in 1979 with the Iranian Hostage Crisis at the dawn of the twenty-four hour news cycle. It ended on December 14, 2012 while the Sandy Hook massacre played on television as Marion passed away. In between, Marion recorded on 70,000 VHS tapes, capturing revolutions, lies, wars, triumphs, catastrophes, bloopers, talk shows, and commercials that tell us who we were, and show how television shaped the world of today.
Before “fake news” Marion was fighting to protect the truth by archiving everything that was said and shown on television. The public didn’t know it, but the networks were disposing their archives for decades into the trashcan of history. Remarkably Marion saved it, and now the Internet Archive will digitize her tapes and we’ll be able to search them online for free.
This is a mystery in the form of a time capsule. It’s about a radical Communist activist, who became a fabulously wealthy recluse archivist. Her work was crazy but it was also genius, and she would pay a profound price for dedicating her life to this visionary and maddening project."
posted by nikoniko at 5:45 PM on August 9 [57 favorites]
I hope O'Donnell's heart is okay after the Times' completely over the top "Biden will leave office with the nation consumed by war" headline from this afternoon. This is at absurd levels now.
posted by dry white toast at 5:57 PM on August 9 [10 favorites]
posted by dry white toast at 5:57 PM on August 9 [10 favorites]
It's a decent rant (it's no Network) but his critique is wrong, fundamentally. He's calling Trump stupid, which is true, but he's calling the reporters and the larger media stupid, as well. And this is what marks O'Donnell just like everyone else on MSNBC as a member of that exact same media machine. It's owned by the oligarchy, it desperately wants this election to be as close as possible, and the oligarchs want Trump to win so they can get rid of democracy entirely.
Every one of those reporters absolutely knows that were they to really report on what a Gish Gallop of dementia-addled lies that Trump spews out, their corporate masters would remove them from the attention and salary being a major-media reporter brings, and someone else will step right into their place and agree to take Trump at his word. O'Donnell is doing the Jon Stewart thing: they'll make fun of the media for being brain-dead, but they'll never, ever, get at why they have to be brain-dead, because it's the only remotely plausible way never to bring up the real injustices.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 6:36 PM on August 9 [22 favorites]
Every one of those reporters absolutely knows that were they to really report on what a Gish Gallop of dementia-addled lies that Trump spews out, their corporate masters would remove them from the attention and salary being a major-media reporter brings, and someone else will step right into their place and agree to take Trump at his word. O'Donnell is doing the Jon Stewart thing: they'll make fun of the media for being brain-dead, but they'll never, ever, get at why they have to be brain-dead, because it's the only remotely plausible way never to bring up the real injustices.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 6:36 PM on August 9 [22 favorites]
not a fan of O' Donnell, but this was good. Here's another MSNBC take: avalanche of lies
BTW I think it is really weird that the US see MSMBC as a far left channel. It is no further left than the BBC, that is seen as center right in Europe
posted by mumimor at 8:39 PM on August 9 [13 favorites]
BTW I think it is really weird that the US see MSMBC as a far left channel. It is no further left than the BBC, that is seen as center right in Europe
posted by mumimor at 8:39 PM on August 9 [13 favorites]
From March 2016: CBS Chief Les Moonves Says Trump's 'Damn Good' For Business
"I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us," he said at the event. "Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."
The outlet notes Moonves said ad sales this season have been particularly strong, partly due to an election cycle rapt with attacks and "bomb throwing" that keeps Americans interested.
"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said.
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 9:03 PM on August 9 [7 favorites]
"I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us," he said at the event. "Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."
The outlet notes Moonves said ad sales this season have been particularly strong, partly due to an election cycle rapt with attacks and "bomb throwing" that keeps Americans interested.
"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said.
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 9:03 PM on August 9 [7 favorites]
Les Moonves
I cannot see this name without envisaging a black and white woodcut cartoon of mysterious French moon creatures
posted by Jon Mitchell at 9:08 PM on August 9 [24 favorites]
I cannot see this name without envisaging a black and white woodcut cartoon of mysterious French moon creatures
posted by Jon Mitchell at 9:08 PM on August 9 [24 favorites]
We don't have a major left wing video news source. The closest I can think of is Pro Publica, and they are only left-wing by virtue of being truth-driven -- and of course they are primarily text.
posted by suelac at 9:15 PM on August 9 [9 favorites]
posted by suelac at 9:15 PM on August 9 [9 favorites]
The incentives cut against it, I think; The Guardian’s probably the most prominent left-wing news source, thanks to their trust funding model, but that’s no protection against them buying into some heinous moral panics, as the UK office does on transgender people. If you’re supported by advertising, you cannot upset the advertisers too much, even if the newsroom is officially separated from the sales room.
posted by Merus at 9:33 PM on August 9 [8 favorites]
posted by Merus at 9:33 PM on August 9 [8 favorites]
Man... Never attribute to malice, or mendacity, what can adequately be explained by exhaustion. The press aren't pulling one over on anybody. They're barely surviving and bone-tired from a decade of non-stop lies, abuse, and utterly fruitless effort. I don't mean to be all "poor them" but they learned the lesson they were taught.
Fact check Trump? They did, for years and years, and every time, half the country calls them liars and the other half says, well obviously! Stop giving him attention! Has everyone forgotten the non-stop reporting during the Trump presidency and covid, every newsroom in overdrive trying to expose the guy and his administration? Like thousands and thousands of articles. Every day, for years, every newsroom competing to call out the lies, scams, and idiocy. They thought all that work might have been for a good reason.
Now the same guy is doing the same shit 8 years later, we're exactly where we started. Except now, every newsroom in America is laying off reporters left and right, at least those who didn't quit because the death threats, because the bottom fell out of the business model (social media and search turned off the traffic and advertisers pay a fraction of what they used to) and ownership has consolidated to a handful of shitheel billionaires. Private equity has killed one third, owns another third, and is waiting to buy the last third. Few in the news would be surprised if they were laid off tomorrow. This is after all that "good for CBS" talk by the Les Moonveses of the world. But all that money already rolled uphill.
Everyone seems to think there's some conspiracy the media are deploying on the people and political landscape at large. I always laugh at this. Might as well talk about them faking the moon landing. Media orgs couldn't effectively conspire even if they could agree on what to conspire about, another ridiculous notion. They're disorganized, scared, and broke. From the times to newsmax. Believe it. It's like thinking some rabbits are conspiring together because they're running pell mell in the same headlights.
I realize this isn't the dominant viewpoint here, and I'm with you all on 99% of everything that gets discussed on the blue. Yeah, cable news and the 24 hour news cycle is shitty and exploitative. I don't like it either. But this talk about "the media" doing Trump's bidding is also shitty. There is no "the media," but there are thousands and thousands of reporters, editors, anchors, and producers who are fucking broken after years of trying to strike the right note in one of the most tumultuous periods in modern history and getting horse whipped from a different direction every time. The press pool sleeps through Trump rant #37 of the last couple weeks, with the same 50 lies told over again, and gets called complicit. But they reported them the first 20 times. No one cared then. Why should they now? I mean I acknowledge what logicpunk says above, a reporter would rather effect change. But there's a limit to how many times anyone will beat their head against that wall and produce nothing but pain.
If you are going to take a shot, and they're certainly well deserved now and then, maybe just narrow the scope a little? If by "the media" you mean to refer to "corporate cable news" or "Sinclair-coordinated local stations" or "establishment newspapers," say that. I have my problems with those things too. I have my problems with the NYT. I have my problems with my own outlet. But they're not the same problems, because all these things are very different. I don't have a problem with "the media" because "the media" isn't a valid entity to have a problem with. To me that's like saying you have a problem with "the technology," without specifying whether you mean AI or automatic coffee makers.
I don't know. I also agree in some ways. Mainly I think reporting as a profitable enterprise is largely finished and we're witnessing its death throes, at a particularly inconvenient time for everyone. People either don't want or won't pay for the kind of work that needs to be done, and no one will (or should) trust the government to do it right either. So the whole industry atrophies. What comes next? No one has a clue. But one thing you can be sure about, no one will be happy with that either.
Well. Sorry, obviously I needed to get this off my chest. Love this site.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:39 PM on August 9 [79 favorites]
Fact check Trump? They did, for years and years, and every time, half the country calls them liars and the other half says, well obviously! Stop giving him attention! Has everyone forgotten the non-stop reporting during the Trump presidency and covid, every newsroom in overdrive trying to expose the guy and his administration? Like thousands and thousands of articles. Every day, for years, every newsroom competing to call out the lies, scams, and idiocy. They thought all that work might have been for a good reason.
Now the same guy is doing the same shit 8 years later, we're exactly where we started. Except now, every newsroom in America is laying off reporters left and right, at least those who didn't quit because the death threats, because the bottom fell out of the business model (social media and search turned off the traffic and advertisers pay a fraction of what they used to) and ownership has consolidated to a handful of shitheel billionaires. Private equity has killed one third, owns another third, and is waiting to buy the last third. Few in the news would be surprised if they were laid off tomorrow. This is after all that "good for CBS" talk by the Les Moonveses of the world. But all that money already rolled uphill.
Everyone seems to think there's some conspiracy the media are deploying on the people and political landscape at large. I always laugh at this. Might as well talk about them faking the moon landing. Media orgs couldn't effectively conspire even if they could agree on what to conspire about, another ridiculous notion. They're disorganized, scared, and broke. From the times to newsmax. Believe it. It's like thinking some rabbits are conspiring together because they're running pell mell in the same headlights.
I realize this isn't the dominant viewpoint here, and I'm with you all on 99% of everything that gets discussed on the blue. Yeah, cable news and the 24 hour news cycle is shitty and exploitative. I don't like it either. But this talk about "the media" doing Trump's bidding is also shitty. There is no "the media," but there are thousands and thousands of reporters, editors, anchors, and producers who are fucking broken after years of trying to strike the right note in one of the most tumultuous periods in modern history and getting horse whipped from a different direction every time. The press pool sleeps through Trump rant #37 of the last couple weeks, with the same 50 lies told over again, and gets called complicit. But they reported them the first 20 times. No one cared then. Why should they now? I mean I acknowledge what logicpunk says above, a reporter would rather effect change. But there's a limit to how many times anyone will beat their head against that wall and produce nothing but pain.
If you are going to take a shot, and they're certainly well deserved now and then, maybe just narrow the scope a little? If by "the media" you mean to refer to "corporate cable news" or "Sinclair-coordinated local stations" or "establishment newspapers," say that. I have my problems with those things too. I have my problems with the NYT. I have my problems with my own outlet. But they're not the same problems, because all these things are very different. I don't have a problem with "the media" because "the media" isn't a valid entity to have a problem with. To me that's like saying you have a problem with "the technology," without specifying whether you mean AI or automatic coffee makers.
I don't know. I also agree in some ways. Mainly I think reporting as a profitable enterprise is largely finished and we're witnessing its death throes, at a particularly inconvenient time for everyone. People either don't want or won't pay for the kind of work that needs to be done, and no one will (or should) trust the government to do it right either. So the whole industry atrophies. What comes next? No one has a clue. But one thing you can be sure about, no one will be happy with that either.
Well. Sorry, obviously I needed to get this off my chest. Love this site.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:39 PM on August 9 [79 favorites]
I think it was Matt Taibbi who blamed the working conditions for reporters on the 2016 campaign trail. There was constant travel and exhaustion, and all the politicians were boring, except Trump. So there wasn't enough time to check anything and a constant demand for content, and Trump was the one who reliably got attention from viewers. I have a feeling this is exaggerated, but could be a good partial truth.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 10:12 PM on August 9 [1 favorite]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 10:12 PM on August 9 [1 favorite]
If Matt Taibbi is saying that, it's probably at-best exaggerated and at-worst just bullshit.
Although, I do think there's something weird that's happened over the past 8 years with our collective reaction to Trump. I used to read/watch coverage of all the bullshit he pulled during his presidency, then after it was over more-or-less dialed that way back (I mean, obviously it's fatiguing to pay attention to all the ridiculousness he emanates, so this was a good thing for my mental health). At the same time, we all spent enough time watching him say something ridiculous only for nothing of consequence to come of it that eventually you're in "fool me twice" mode and it all just rolls off your back. Even his fans seem to be losing their appetite if reports of his rallies losing attendance are accurate.
I mean, we all get it, he says ridiculous shit, at some point you have to just shrug and get on with your life. At this point there's no point in paying attention to him, it's not like he's going to say something to make me vote for him. Conversely if you did vote for him I don't know there's anything he hasn't already said that would've changed your mind if it could be. So now it's just LIVs that live under a rock that have any chance of being swayed. Have fun with discovering what a load of crap he says, you guys, I'm gonna go have ice cream.
posted by axiom at 10:34 PM on August 9 [3 favorites]
Although, I do think there's something weird that's happened over the past 8 years with our collective reaction to Trump. I used to read/watch coverage of all the bullshit he pulled during his presidency, then after it was over more-or-less dialed that way back (I mean, obviously it's fatiguing to pay attention to all the ridiculousness he emanates, so this was a good thing for my mental health). At the same time, we all spent enough time watching him say something ridiculous only for nothing of consequence to come of it that eventually you're in "fool me twice" mode and it all just rolls off your back. Even his fans seem to be losing their appetite if reports of his rallies losing attendance are accurate.
I mean, we all get it, he says ridiculous shit, at some point you have to just shrug and get on with your life. At this point there's no point in paying attention to him, it's not like he's going to say something to make me vote for him. Conversely if you did vote for him I don't know there's anything he hasn't already said that would've changed your mind if it could be. So now it's just LIVs that live under a rock that have any chance of being swayed. Have fun with discovering what a load of crap he says, you guys, I'm gonna go have ice cream.
posted by axiom at 10:34 PM on August 9 [3 favorites]
They want him to win. There’s a zillion different reasons but when it comes down to it they just want to want him to win. I cannot fucking believe they’re swift boating walz but everything can be explained by the reality that - despite what individual reporters want - the politico-media cartel wants trump to win.
I wonder what’s Joe Kahn will think as he’s loaded onto the trains bound for the concentration camps. Probably that it’s the democrats fault.
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:34 PM on August 9 [6 favorites]
I wonder what’s Joe Kahn will think as he’s loaded onto the trains bound for the concentration camps. Probably that it’s the democrats fault.
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:34 PM on August 9 [6 favorites]
because the bottom fell out of the business model
A highly questionable assertion when US presidential campaigns will spend $12-13 billion dollars in media ad buys this year, alone.
Everyone seems to think there's some conspiracy the media are deploying on the people and political landscape at large. I always laugh at this.
I'll say it plainly: You and the media are laughing all of us onto a train to Trump's concentration camps. As the expression goes, by the time (real) journalists are disappeared, it will be too late. Either you guys figure it out or a lot of us get murdered by these fascists.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:58 PM on August 9 [8 favorites]
A highly questionable assertion when US presidential campaigns will spend $12-13 billion dollars in media ad buys this year, alone.
Everyone seems to think there's some conspiracy the media are deploying on the people and political landscape at large. I always laugh at this.
I'll say it plainly: You and the media are laughing all of us onto a train to Trump's concentration camps. As the expression goes, by the time (real) journalists are disappeared, it will be too late. Either you guys figure it out or a lot of us get murdered by these fascists.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:58 PM on August 9 [8 favorites]
There's that horse whip — ol reliable!!
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 11:09 PM on August 9 [2 favorites]
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 11:09 PM on August 9 [2 favorites]
Are my numbers wrong? Campaigns are spending more on ads than yearly budgets for some federal agencies. Even if this is normal to you, can you explain why this has been normalized by the media, to the point that there is virtually no critical reflection of the media's role in promoting an openly fascist candidate?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:13 PM on August 9 [8 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:13 PM on August 9 [8 favorites]
Just give me some cites, that's all I ask. Why is this normal behavior?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:15 PM on August 9 [2 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:15 PM on August 9 [2 favorites]
The assertion that all media across America want Trump to win is just absurd doomerism. On the face of it, it's definitionally wrong, because the Guardian has a US office; it's factually wrong, because you wouldn't have articles like this from the Boston Globe that I happen to have in an open tab, that frames the swift-boating attempt on Walz as a swift-boat attack.
I think it's also emotionally wrong, which is why I'm dismissing it as doomerism - there's definitely prominent elements of the press that want Trump to win, and the NYT's coverage is suspiciously deferential, but for many journalists I think their behaviour can more adequately be explained by being bamboozled by the Gish Gallop and not really having the time or ability to investigate. It's striking that Trump admitting that he took a bribe from a foreign official is less newsworthy than the much easier to check story about him taking a helicopter ride; the helicopter ride story is easy to confirm or deny, and part of the problem the press finds themselves in is that confirming individual stories doesn't fucking matter.
The UK political culture is much stronger than in the US - journalists routinely ask follow-up questions in the UK - and Boris Johnson wasn't felled by people working out that Boris Johnson was a habitual and shameless liar, or that his party had breached their own lockdown rules, thumbing their nose at the rest of the country trying to do the right thing (and this is in a country where "we need to have lockdowns" was broadly agreed!), but by a fairly tawdry scandal months later about an official who had a history of abusive behaviour. The difference was that the ruling party finally worked out that Boris Johnson was just as willing to lie to them as he was to the public.
I predict that, if their campaign continues on as it has, the vast majority of the media in America will endorse the Harris/Walz ticket.
posted by Merus at 1:41 AM on August 10 [10 favorites]
I think it's also emotionally wrong, which is why I'm dismissing it as doomerism - there's definitely prominent elements of the press that want Trump to win, and the NYT's coverage is suspiciously deferential, but for many journalists I think their behaviour can more adequately be explained by being bamboozled by the Gish Gallop and not really having the time or ability to investigate. It's striking that Trump admitting that he took a bribe from a foreign official is less newsworthy than the much easier to check story about him taking a helicopter ride; the helicopter ride story is easy to confirm or deny, and part of the problem the press finds themselves in is that confirming individual stories doesn't fucking matter.
The UK political culture is much stronger than in the US - journalists routinely ask follow-up questions in the UK - and Boris Johnson wasn't felled by people working out that Boris Johnson was a habitual and shameless liar, or that his party had breached their own lockdown rules, thumbing their nose at the rest of the country trying to do the right thing (and this is in a country where "we need to have lockdowns" was broadly agreed!), but by a fairly tawdry scandal months later about an official who had a history of abusive behaviour. The difference was that the ruling party finally worked out that Boris Johnson was just as willing to lie to them as he was to the public.
I predict that, if their campaign continues on as it has, the vast majority of the media in America will endorse the Harris/Walz ticket.
posted by Merus at 1:41 AM on August 10 [10 favorites]
But why can't American journalists ask politicians and CEOs follow up questions? Why are they all such cowards?
Look up Amy Goodman's interview with Bill Clinton, from long ago, that is how it is done. Stick, move, follow-up, follow-up.
Gish Gallop can be countered by simply asking another question. It is so sad that they won't do this
posted by eustatic at 3:31 AM on August 10 [2 favorites]
Look up Amy Goodman's interview with Bill Clinton, from long ago, that is how it is done. Stick, move, follow-up, follow-up.
Gish Gallop can be countered by simply asking another question. It is so sad that they won't do this
posted by eustatic at 3:31 AM on August 10 [2 favorites]
Ask another question, get another Gish Gallop. Not sure that's really a counter move.
reprinting his statements verbatim
This, on the other hand, seems like a pretty devastating blow. Trump's statements make no sense. Reprinting them in full can only make him look terrible.
It's when they chop a whole load of nonsense up into individual quotes, add some context in which you might imagine those quotes could make sense, and leave out the contradictory parts that they are doing him favors.
Either don't report on him at all, or run the full word salad, I say.
And run Kamala Harris's statements in full too. Let people see the difference for themselves.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:36 AM on August 10 [12 favorites]
reprinting his statements verbatim
This, on the other hand, seems like a pretty devastating blow. Trump's statements make no sense. Reprinting them in full can only make him look terrible.
It's when they chop a whole load of nonsense up into individual quotes, add some context in which you might imagine those quotes could make sense, and leave out the contradictory parts that they are doing him favors.
Either don't report on him at all, or run the full word salad, I say.
And run Kamala Harris's statements in full too. Let people see the difference for themselves.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:36 AM on August 10 [12 favorites]
The press pool sleeps through Trump rant #37 of the last couple weeks, with the same 50 lies told over again, and gets called complicit.
All they had to do was nothing. Just... nothing. Don't broadcast Trump live. Don't translate his gobbledygook into English. Just... nothing. And they continually choose actively assisting Trump over simple nothing.
But why can't American journalists ask politicians and CEOs follow up questions? Why are they all such cowards?
Wrong question. Why do they ask Biden and Harris lots of follow up questions, but not Trump?
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:06 AM on August 10 [24 favorites]
All they had to do was nothing. Just... nothing. Don't broadcast Trump live. Don't translate his gobbledygook into English. Just... nothing. And they continually choose actively assisting Trump over simple nothing.
But why can't American journalists ask politicians and CEOs follow up questions? Why are they all such cowards?
Wrong question. Why do they ask Biden and Harris lots of follow up questions, but not Trump?
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:06 AM on August 10 [24 favorites]
The Gish Gallop, for folks like me who'd never heard the term before:
The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by abandoning formal debating principles, providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments and that are impossible to address adequately in the time allotted to the opponent. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality...
The term, "Gish gallop", was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish. Scott argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.
posted by mediareport at 5:25 AM on August 10 [8 favorites]
The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by abandoning formal debating principles, providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments and that are impossible to address adequately in the time allotted to the opponent. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality...
The term, "Gish gallop", was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish. Scott argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.
posted by mediareport at 5:25 AM on August 10 [8 favorites]
Why do they ask Biden and Harris lots of follow up questions, but not Trump?
Ask follow up questions when? You can’t ask follow up questions unless someone sits for an interview, which Trump generally doesn’t do.
posted by neroli at 5:42 AM on August 10 [2 favorites]
Ask follow up questions when? You can’t ask follow up questions unless someone sits for an interview, which Trump generally doesn’t do.
posted by neroli at 5:42 AM on August 10 [2 favorites]
I don't know. I also agree in some ways. Mainly I think reporting as a profitable enterprise is largely finished and we're witnessing its death throes, at a particularly inconvenient time for everyone. People either don't want or won't pay for the kind of work that needs to be done, and no one will (or should) trust the government to do it right either. So the whole industry atrophies.My own take is entirely compatible. I didn’t want to suggest a conspiracy. I don’t believe a conspiracy is necessary. The distinction is a little like describing why decrying “systemic racism” isn’t the same as saying “everybody in the system is racist.”
What you’re describing here is “enshittification.” To forego the buzzword, this is what corporate capitalism does to everything. Market forces result in internal economic pressures that are shockingly effective at diffusing responsibility within an organization and disempowering people of good will from exercising it (and punishing them for any attempt). Those well-meaning journalists are not exhausted by Trump. Trump is a particularly virulent symptom. They are exhausted by the system under which they labor. The system isn’t stacked with mustache-twirling villains. It’s stacked with exhausted people who each insist, and not entirely inaccurately, that they hate it but there’s nothing they can do.
The stupidity and evil is emergent, but we cannot look at the results and pretend it therefore isn’t real. It is possible for not a single person employed at The New York Times to want Trump to win, but for The Times itself to manifest that agenda as a function of business assumptions that seem obvious and/or innocuous in isolation. Each person makes the best decisions available to them within the boundaries the organization defines for their role, but the result advances the agenda despite any of them. They individually get defensive when confronted with the results, again not entirely unfairly, but this defensiveness is a function of systemic diffusion of responsibility in action. Again, not just in journalism by a long shot.
Stochastic villainy is villainy nonetheless. I suggest that none of us can take back the power of our own conscience without directly assaulting the neoliberal economic regime that took it from us in the first place. The joke goes “I’ll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one,” but I’m not joking. Economic dogmatism has birthed monsters, and the humans they were meant to serve need to recover control of their creations. Somehow. If it’s even possible.
posted by gelfin at 6:02 AM on August 10 [26 favorites]
One thing I've noticed he does is to criticize the question. If he gets a question he doesn't like, especially from a female reporter, is he calls it a "nasty question" and "very disrespectful." It's as if reporters are actually afraid of being called out like that. If I were a reporter I think being called disrespectful or nasty by Trump a badge of honor.
O'Donnell is 100% correct.
As far as the behavior O'Donnell is referring to, it is, however a business tactic. In my old job I'd been told by multiple consultants that in presentations you answer the question you'd wish they asked when confronted by something. Trump is a veteran of hundreds of such presentations.
I thought the consultants were full of shit at the time and maybe I was right. My last boss followed that advice religiously and 2 years after I resigned the company was out of business.
posted by lordrunningclam at 6:31 AM on August 10 [7 favorites]
O'Donnell is 100% correct.
As far as the behavior O'Donnell is referring to, it is, however a business tactic. In my old job I'd been told by multiple consultants that in presentations you answer the question you'd wish they asked when confronted by something. Trump is a veteran of hundreds of such presentations.
I thought the consultants were full of shit at the time and maybe I was right. My last boss followed that advice religiously and 2 years after I resigned the company was out of business.
posted by lordrunningclam at 6:31 AM on August 10 [7 favorites]
Ask follow up questions when?
After Trump tells an obvious lie.
You can’t ask follow up questions unless someone sits for an interview
Sure you can. Just shout them, like they do at Biden.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 6:38 AM on August 10 [11 favorites]
After Trump tells an obvious lie.
You can’t ask follow up questions unless someone sits for an interview
Sure you can. Just shout them, like they do at Biden.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 6:38 AM on August 10 [11 favorites]
Note that at NABJ they actually did try to adhere to some degree of journalistic standards with Trump and he turned into a complete mess and cut it short.
posted by Artw at 6:47 AM on August 10 [22 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:47 AM on August 10 [22 favorites]
thanks, artw, i was about to point this Counterpoint: NABJ held to journalism where others have not
NABJ President Ken Lemon told Axios Trump nearly refused to do the interview when he learned he would be fact-checked. Lemon said he was about to, quote, “craft a statement, saying he decided not to go on stage because of fact-checking. … We couldn’t compromise on that,” unquote. As he prepared his statement, Lemon said Trump walked onto the stage.
So, why can NABJ do it, and few else? Is it really just a collective action problem? This dude needs to be on TV...TV needs to take the attitude that they don't need him
posted by eustatic at 7:42 AM on August 10 [17 favorites]
NABJ President Ken Lemon told Axios Trump nearly refused to do the interview when he learned he would be fact-checked. Lemon said he was about to, quote, “craft a statement, saying he decided not to go on stage because of fact-checking. … We couldn’t compromise on that,” unquote. As he prepared his statement, Lemon said Trump walked onto the stage.
So, why can NABJ do it, and few else? Is it really just a collective action problem? This dude needs to be on TV...TV needs to take the attitude that they don't need him
posted by eustatic at 7:42 AM on August 10 [17 favorites]
Last month Emily Maitles interviewed Kari Lake and nailed her to the fuckin’ wall. You might remember Maitles from her interview with Prince Andrew, subject of two movies. So there’s another capable journalist out there.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 7:44 AM on August 10 [12 favorites]
posted by TWinbrook8 at 7:44 AM on August 10 [12 favorites]
I think you all will like this NYT interview with Bernie Sanders from 2 days ago (link is to youtube) wherein Bernie really needles the reporter about the NYT being corporate media with an agenda.
As an aside, Bernie is so damn sharp.
posted by maggiemaggie at 8:15 AM on August 10 [9 favorites]
As an aside, Bernie is so damn sharp.
posted by maggiemaggie at 8:15 AM on August 10 [9 favorites]
Honestly no idea what went on with NABJ. Trump thought it would be a side event where he could drop his new birther shit and get a few softballs? A FOX person may have been involved but they were very much not up for that.
posted by Artw at 8:19 AM on August 10 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:19 AM on August 10 [3 favorites]
The assertion that all media across America want Trump to win is just absurd doomerism. On the face of it, it's definitionally wrong, because the Guardian has a US office; it's factually wrong, because you wouldn't have articles like this from the Boston Globe that I happen to have in an open tab, that frames the swift-boating attempt on Walz as a swift-boat attack.
I don't know if the media wants Trump to win and neither do you. What I do know is that the media has and continues to treat Trump in a very different way than they treat Biden and his press secretary. Watch the video to see the comparison. What I do know is that the media can no longer be the fourth rail when their primary concern is dollars, and that translates into their primary concern being clicks. Trump has been very good for the media because his ridiculous behavior drives clicks.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:24 AM on August 10 [8 favorites]
I don't know if the media wants Trump to win and neither do you. What I do know is that the media has and continues to treat Trump in a very different way than they treat Biden and his press secretary. Watch the video to see the comparison. What I do know is that the media can no longer be the fourth rail when their primary concern is dollars, and that translates into their primary concern being clicks. Trump has been very good for the media because his ridiculous behavior drives clicks.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:24 AM on August 10 [8 favorites]
Les MoonvesI can't see his name without thinking of his blacklisting of Janet Jackson while letting Justin Timberlake skate for the exact same moment.
I cannot see this name without envisaging a black and white woodcut cartoon of mysterious French moon creatures
It is pretty obvious that the current press bias against the democratic party and the left in general is a function of a multitude of causes both big and small but one huge one is that the richest and most powerful among us are generally monstrous assholes.
However this hypothetical is emphatically not the case. The owner of the NY Times was/is openly anti-Biden in a huge way and apparently for very bizarrely petty reasons according to admission made to a inside source. He also lets the editorial board load up on some of the stupidest conservative pundits I've ever seen in my entire life for "balance".
The stupidity and evil is emergent, but we cannot look at the results and pretend it therefore isn’t real. It is possible for not a single person employed at The New York Times to want Trump to win, but for The Times itself to manifest that agenda as a function of business assumptions that seem obvious and/or innocuous in isolation. Each person makes the best decisions available to them within the boundaries the organization defines for their role, but the result advances the agenda despite any of them. They individually get defensive when confronted with the results, again not entirely unfairly, but this defensiveness is a function of systemic diffusion of responsibility in action. Again, not just in journalism by a long shot.
At the factual reporting level the most recent whitewashing of Trump's Mar-a-lago press conference was by a NY Times reporter whose previous high notes were saying Obama was not black. Called out for it at the time. Still on the job laundering Trump. This is a clear editorial choice to let someone who just rewrites Republican operative campaign talking points and attributes them to Trump. The Trump campaign is embedded inside many of the largest parts of the press corps and are also deeply embedded in the major social media companies.
I do think there are emergent problems and many little things contributing to the problem of anti-left press bias in the US and the West in general but lets not kid ourselves about the biggest problem: Billionaires are almost universally not progressive. You can tell the ones who are because the right goes absolutely apeshit about the one who is a politically active pro democracy moderate (Soros). There is a massive thumb on the scale.
posted by srboisvert at 8:24 AM on August 10 [17 favorites]
The owner of the NY Times was/is openly anti-Biden in a huge way and apparently for very bizarrely petty reasons according to admission made to a inside source.
I was wondering why they are still attacking Biden when he's already left the race.
posted by maggiemaggie at 8:42 AM on August 10 [2 favorites]
I was wondering why they are still attacking Biden when he's already left the race.
posted by maggiemaggie at 8:42 AM on August 10 [2 favorites]
I know it’s anecdotal and all that but every time I open the NYT page it’s just trump slanted bullshit. Yesterday(?) the headlined an exciting new Trump bullshit claim that he’s going to end social security taxes and they fucking treated it like that was real. If Biden or Harris had said that they’d have a team of 30 ‘experts on the political beat’ and 17 economists screaming from the rooftops on how that’d be the end of the republic.
But it’s our lovable scamp Trumpy. Do maybe he’ll do it - La La La La …
More damning is 1) swift boating Walz 24 hours after the announcement- TWENTY FOUR HOURS! How long have they had that one teed up and 2) Where’s the Egypt bribe story? Again Biden or Harris and the NYT would be demanding Guantanamo for them.
O’Donnell is right but he didn’t go anywhere far enough.
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:49 AM on August 10 [9 favorites]
But it’s our lovable scamp Trumpy. Do maybe he’ll do it - La La La La …
More damning is 1) swift boating Walz 24 hours after the announcement- TWENTY FOUR HOURS! How long have they had that one teed up and 2) Where’s the Egypt bribe story? Again Biden or Harris and the NYT would be demanding Guantanamo for them.
O’Donnell is right but he didn’t go anywhere far enough.
posted by WatTylerJr at 8:49 AM on August 10 [9 favorites]
"if it bleeds it leads"
unless they're Sudanese
posted by clandestiny's child at 9:13 AM on August 10 [16 favorites]
unless they're Sudanese
posted by clandestiny's child at 9:13 AM on August 10 [16 favorites]
The most jarring thing about the video is that the journalists at the Biden press conference are not doing critical journalism, but bullying. They are caught up in the sort of intense mob action that most of us have experienced in middle school -- maybe even on both sides. Which is not at all what happened at the NABJ conference.
That said, it seems that globally, journalism schools are teaching journalists that critical thinking is finding negatives, conflicts are essential for good writing and that you must always hear both sides of an argument, even if one side is a serial liar. Not only thinking of Trump, but also of those "scientists" who claim global warming is a hoax etc. I don't mean this is a culture among journalists and spread by osmosis, I mean this is actively taught at those institutions.
Personally, I like the tradition of having pundits/commentators from both sides, because I like to know my enemies. But the journalists should learn true critical thinking.
posted by mumimor at 9:13 AM on August 10 [3 favorites]
That said, it seems that globally, journalism schools are teaching journalists that critical thinking is finding negatives, conflicts are essential for good writing and that you must always hear both sides of an argument, even if one side is a serial liar. Not only thinking of Trump, but also of those "scientists" who claim global warming is a hoax etc. I don't mean this is a culture among journalists and spread by osmosis, I mean this is actively taught at those institutions.
Personally, I like the tradition of having pundits/commentators from both sides, because I like to know my enemies. But the journalists should learn true critical thinking.
posted by mumimor at 9:13 AM on August 10 [3 favorites]
The owner of the NY Times was/is openly anti-Biden in a huge way and apparently for very bizarrely petty reasons according to admission made to a inside source.
Could you elaborate on (or link to) this one? (If the petty reasons -- as spelled out in Politico's The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House -- are that Biden refused to sit for the "exclusive presidential interview" the NYT has felt entitled to for ages now, the underlying story is that they saw his refusal as further attempt by the Biden camp at covering up his decline. I'm inclined to think Biden still has the wherewithal to be President, just not to campaign for it, but in retrospect weren't they kind of right to have beaten that Biden-too-old drum? We're in a much better place now, thanks to a critical mass of people in power eventually coming to terms with that perspective. But if there are other, pettier reasons that have emerged, I really would love to know what they are.)
posted by nobody at 9:25 AM on August 10 [4 favorites]
Could you elaborate on (or link to) this one? (If the petty reasons -- as spelled out in Politico's The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House -- are that Biden refused to sit for the "exclusive presidential interview" the NYT has felt entitled to for ages now, the underlying story is that they saw his refusal as further attempt by the Biden camp at covering up his decline. I'm inclined to think Biden still has the wherewithal to be President, just not to campaign for it, but in retrospect weren't they kind of right to have beaten that Biden-too-old drum? We're in a much better place now, thanks to a critical mass of people in power eventually coming to terms with that perspective. But if there are other, pettier reasons that have emerged, I really would love to know what they are.)
posted by nobody at 9:25 AM on August 10 [4 favorites]
Why would corporate owned, republican lead media outlets staffed with professional managerial class editors/directors/writers/on-air talent etc betray their role in supporting cartel corporate fascism to actually help truth, justice and the american way. Stop waiting for santa clause to become real and start dismantling the systems that oppress you.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 10:05 AM on August 10 [6 favorites]
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 10:05 AM on August 10 [6 favorites]
Don't broadcast Trump live. Don't translate his gobbledygook into English
A lot of the criticism of the media is coming from the position that these are actually two different things - and that the media is doing far too much of the second, and nowhere nearly enough of the first.
IOW, when the CNN or NYT headline is, "Trump airs 2020 election grievances at RNC" and they show a 10 second clip of his most lucid sentence, that normalizes him. Whereas if they posted 30 seconds of him ranting about the 2020 election and ran headlines about "Trump continues to push the Big Lie about 2020" then the normies get reminded how batshit he is, and how much they dislike him and how disastrous his Presidency was
posted by soundguy99 at 10:22 AM on August 10 [12 favorites]
A lot of the criticism of the media is coming from the position that these are actually two different things - and that the media is doing far too much of the second, and nowhere nearly enough of the first.
IOW, when the CNN or NYT headline is, "Trump airs 2020 election grievances at RNC" and they show a 10 second clip of his most lucid sentence, that normalizes him. Whereas if they posted 30 seconds of him ranting about the 2020 election and ran headlines about "Trump continues to push the Big Lie about 2020" then the normies get reminded how batshit he is, and how much they dislike him and how disastrous his Presidency was
posted by soundguy99 at 10:22 AM on August 10 [12 favorites]
Either the media is going bankrupt and can't hire journalists to do journalism, or the media on the whole promote Trump because, in fact, they can make money hand over fist by propping him up.
Both cannot be mutually true, and there is more evidence for bias in the latter, both in terms of raw ad revenue and, more importantly, what we can see and read with our own eyes.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:35 AM on August 10
Both cannot be mutually true, and there is more evidence for bias in the latter, both in terms of raw ad revenue and, more importantly, what we can see and read with our own eyes.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:35 AM on August 10
> carrying water for fascists
On Tyranny:* "Do not obey in advance."
posted by kliuless at 11:26 AM on August 10 [21 favorites]
On Tyranny:* "Do not obey in advance."
Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.Views on threats to democracy and pursuit of freedom:** "Snyder likened NBC's pre-2024 election hiring of former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel to the anticipatory obedience he described in his book On Tyranny..."
Anticipatory obedience is a political tragedy. Perhaps rulers did not initially know that citizens were willing to compromise this value or that principle. Perhaps a new regime did not at first have the direct means of influencing citizens one way or another. After the German elections of 1932, which brought Nazis into government, or the Czechoslovak elections of 1946, where communists were victorious, the next crucial step was anticipatory obedience. Because enough people in both cases voluntarily extended their services to the new leaders, Nazis and communists alike realized that they could move quickly toward a full regime change. The first heedless acts of conformity could not then be reversed...
posted by kliuless at 11:26 AM on August 10 [21 favorites]
Could you elaborate on (or link to) this one? (If the petty reasons -- as spelled out in Politico's The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House -- are that Biden refused to sit for the "exclusive presidential interview" the NYT has felt entitled to for ages now, the underlying story is that they saw his refusal as further attempt by the Biden camp at covering up his decline. I'm inclined to think Biden still has the wherewithal to be President, just not to campaign for it, but in retrospect weren't they kind of right to have beaten that Biden-too-old drum? We're in a much better place now, thanks to a critical mass of people in power eventually coming to terms with that perspective. But if there are other, pettier reasons that have emerged, I really would love to know what they are.)
It was just petty. Biden did a live 90 minute interview with David Stern in May ("weirdly" this was never mentioned by the NY Times in their senility attack on Biden because the Stern interview did not fit the narrative).
posted by srboisvert at 11:32 AM on August 10 [11 favorites]
It was just petty. Biden did a live 90 minute interview with David Stern in May ("weirdly" this was never mentioned by the NY Times in their senility attack on Biden because the Stern interview did not fit the narrative).
posted by srboisvert at 11:32 AM on August 10 [11 favorites]
Either the media is going bankrupt and can't hire journalists to do journalism, or the media on the whole promote Trump because, in fact, they can make money hand over fist by propping him up.
Both cannot be mutually true,
Both can be true if Media Executives, in 2024, feel like the profit margins they get as media companies are too low, and feel entitled to the profit rates that tech companies have achieved.
That is, pressure to expand profits can lead both to layoffs of skilled labor and to desperate short term profit-seeking, by going 'yellow', which would innately include playing Trump's 'reality TV' games.
this article isn't about trump coverage, but it does question recent changes in WPost management to go for big scandals over journalism
posted by eustatic at 2:40 PM on August 10 [2 favorites]
Both cannot be mutually true,
Both can be true if Media Executives, in 2024, feel like the profit margins they get as media companies are too low, and feel entitled to the profit rates that tech companies have achieved.
That is, pressure to expand profits can lead both to layoffs of skilled labor and to desperate short term profit-seeking, by going 'yellow', which would innately include playing Trump's 'reality TV' games.
this article isn't about trump coverage, but it does question recent changes in WPost management to go for big scandals over journalism
posted by eustatic at 2:40 PM on August 10 [2 favorites]
The NYTimes is a special case that confuses non readers into thinking it favors Trump, because what it really has been traditionally is a bourgeois-left-leaning white-collar professional demographic paper. So the paper and its staff will, genuinely, endorse the Democrats on the one hand, as is tradition, while being accused of not doing enough as journalists to help with the fight against fascism. There's probably no crypto-conspiracy at work inside the NYTimes, it's just institutional inertia and working journalists doing the best they can. When you look at the bylines of the journalists they're mostly young white people, presumably center-left leaning at the very least, and that does not square up with the overall accusations that the NYTimes is helping the right.
Also some of the demands that the NYT change its headlines are unrealistic, in that the alternative headline is to editorialize even more strongly about what Trump is/isn't doing. It's not as easy a line one may think, writing a non-biased article and the complaints that the NYTimes is somehow not "pro" Biden enough, implicitly require dispensing with a fundamental tenet of journalism itself, editorial neutrality. And that's a moot point that would have to be aired explicitly, e.g. should a paper under fascist times (in which public discursive norms are breaking down anyways) be more activist than they traditionally have operated as? Etc.
posted by polymodus at 3:07 PM on August 10 [3 favorites]
Also some of the demands that the NYT change its headlines are unrealistic, in that the alternative headline is to editorialize even more strongly about what Trump is/isn't doing. It's not as easy a line one may think, writing a non-biased article and the complaints that the NYTimes is somehow not "pro" Biden enough, implicitly require dispensing with a fundamental tenet of journalism itself, editorial neutrality. And that's a moot point that would have to be aired explicitly, e.g. should a paper under fascist times (in which public discursive norms are breaking down anyways) be more activist than they traditionally have operated as? Etc.
posted by polymodus at 3:07 PM on August 10 [3 favorites]
Inside the worst three weeks of Donald Trump's 2024 campaign (NYT gift link, in which access journalists Maggie Halberman and Jonathan Swan do their usual 'based on interviews with Trump insiders who insisted on anonymity')
posted by box at 3:12 PM on August 10 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 3:12 PM on August 10 [2 favorites]
Homer Simpson: "Worst three weeks so far."
posted by rifflesby at 3:35 PM on August 10 [26 favorites]
posted by rifflesby at 3:35 PM on August 10 [26 favorites]
Inside the worst three weeks of Donald Trump's 2024 campaign
And, at the Aug. 2 fund-raiser, according to two people with knowledge of what took place, when a donor at the round-table discussion asked about Democrats trying to paint the Republican ticket as “weird,” Mr. Trump replied: “Not about me. They’re saying that about JD.”posted by kirkaracha at 6:35 PM on August 10 [4 favorites]
while being accused of not doing enough as journalists to help with the fight against fascism
of course as an US american raised to think we fight fascists by Captain America comics, i want journos to fight fascism, and want to fight fascism, like my grandads did. although also I know the history that strategic bombing never works, my fellow americans, and General LeMay was a fucker
But this is not the accusation. What people want is for journalists to focus on the realities of US americans, and hot the weird horse-race drama that is constantly seeking the next dramatic flourishes of our oligarch class. and centers the cocktail discussions of the oligarch class.
Think about the whole "can you have a beer with the president" bullshit, like. There are an unending stream of bullshit topics that media outlets run with that seem to have nothing to so with reality, but the drama sells papers.
Once jounalists commit to following these weird fantasy topics, they are extremely vulnerable to a Trump reality television type, a Karl Rove type, a Limbaugh type, someone who knows how to manipulate these media dynamics from their years in television and media.
It's fascist just by the fact that the conservatives in the USA have been practicing this since Watergate, and Nixon being pressured to resign by the media. Ron DeSantis shows us that not all fascists know how to bullshit and gish gallop like Limbaugh and Trump.
The podcast with Bernie lays this out nicely. Reporters are reading all the other reporters, and likely reading other reporters more than they are talking to americans who are not in on the weird cocktail party.
I think, look at the success of the style of Channel 5 news, for example. It's refreshing to just have pieces that are 80% 'man on the street' and minimal editorializing
posted by eustatic at 6:47 PM on August 10 [5 favorites]
of course as an US american raised to think we fight fascists by Captain America comics, i want journos to fight fascism, and want to fight fascism, like my grandads did. although also I know the history that strategic bombing never works, my fellow americans, and General LeMay was a fucker
But this is not the accusation. What people want is for journalists to focus on the realities of US americans, and hot the weird horse-race drama that is constantly seeking the next dramatic flourishes of our oligarch class. and centers the cocktail discussions of the oligarch class.
Think about the whole "can you have a beer with the president" bullshit, like. There are an unending stream of bullshit topics that media outlets run with that seem to have nothing to so with reality, but the drama sells papers.
Once jounalists commit to following these weird fantasy topics, they are extremely vulnerable to a Trump reality television type, a Karl Rove type, a Limbaugh type, someone who knows how to manipulate these media dynamics from their years in television and media.
It's fascist just by the fact that the conservatives in the USA have been practicing this since Watergate, and Nixon being pressured to resign by the media. Ron DeSantis shows us that not all fascists know how to bullshit and gish gallop like Limbaugh and Trump.
The podcast with Bernie lays this out nicely. Reporters are reading all the other reporters, and likely reading other reporters more than they are talking to americans who are not in on the weird cocktail party.
I think, look at the success of the style of Channel 5 news, for example. It's refreshing to just have pieces that are 80% 'man on the street' and minimal editorializing
posted by eustatic at 6:47 PM on August 10 [5 favorites]
It's not as easy a line one may think, writing a non-biased article and the complaints that the NYTimes is somehow not "pro" Biden enough, implicitly require dispensing with a fundamental tenet of journalism itself, editorial neutrality.
The complaint is that the way that American journalists define editorial neutrality is not by setting a reasonable standard and holding all parties to it equally, but finding a standard that all parties are willing to accept. What this means, in practice, is that outlets committed to editorial neutrality reflexively accept the Republican framing of events - it is hard to imagine how the Hillary Clinton email "scandal" of 2016 warranted the excessive coverage the New York Times gave it (hundreds of stories) except that Republicans told everyone listening that it was a big scandal, a disqualifying scandal.
This is a uniquely American problem. It's true that journalists everywhere struggle with balancing not appearing partisan with saying true things about their most disgraceful political party, which is why foreign journalists are able to be much more objective. But in most countries, there is an out in being able to expect that a politician should be able to handle a tough interview with a political journalist acknowledged to know the issues - and that doesn't appear to be a Thing in the US.
posted by Merus at 7:11 AM on August 11 [11 favorites]
The complaint is that the way that American journalists define editorial neutrality is not by setting a reasonable standard and holding all parties to it equally, but finding a standard that all parties are willing to accept. What this means, in practice, is that outlets committed to editorial neutrality reflexively accept the Republican framing of events - it is hard to imagine how the Hillary Clinton email "scandal" of 2016 warranted the excessive coverage the New York Times gave it (hundreds of stories) except that Republicans told everyone listening that it was a big scandal, a disqualifying scandal.
This is a uniquely American problem. It's true that journalists everywhere struggle with balancing not appearing partisan with saying true things about their most disgraceful political party, which is why foreign journalists are able to be much more objective. But in most countries, there is an out in being able to expect that a politician should be able to handle a tough interview with a political journalist acknowledged to know the issues - and that doesn't appear to be a Thing in the US.
posted by Merus at 7:11 AM on August 11 [11 favorites]
I dont know if Mr O'Donnell somehow gave the journalists at NPR the strength to do it, but it's the first time that I have read such a detailed rebuttal of Trump's mumbo-jumbo. Of course, still l'esprit de l'escalier, but much better than silence.
posted by nicolin at 7:24 AM on August 11 [4 favorites]
posted by nicolin at 7:24 AM on August 11 [4 favorites]
Inside the worst three weeks of Donald Trump's 2024 campaign
It is worth pointing out that the "worst three weeks" of Trump's campaign don't include the assassination attempt. Like, he got shot at, and then it all really started to go downhill.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!
posted by mightygodking at 8:18 AM on August 11 [11 favorites]
It is worth pointing out that the "worst three weeks" of Trump's campaign don't include the assassination attempt. Like, he got shot at, and then it all really started to go downhill.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!
posted by mightygodking at 8:18 AM on August 11 [11 favorites]
Last month Emily Maitles interviewed Kari Lake and nailed her to the fuckin’ wall.
Likewise, Kyle Clark crushed it in moderating the Colorado Congressional District 4 GOP Primary Debate.
Real journalists are out there. We just need more of them. It goes back to the idea that the time has passed where you can go into the interaction as if the person is normal and there are differing ideas. No. These people are abnormal and should be talked to as the liars, distorters, cheaters and crooks they are. It sucks to get to that place mentally, and the moment you realize that even the "but that's what they will say about other people" stuff is utter fucking nonsense is even more demoralizing because you realize just where we've gotten to as a people that a massive chunk of one of the two main parties in America is unable to function right now.
posted by cashman at 2:19 PM on August 11 [4 favorites]
Likewise, Kyle Clark crushed it in moderating the Colorado Congressional District 4 GOP Primary Debate.
Real journalists are out there. We just need more of them. It goes back to the idea that the time has passed where you can go into the interaction as if the person is normal and there are differing ideas. No. These people are abnormal and should be talked to as the liars, distorters, cheaters and crooks they are. It sucks to get to that place mentally, and the moment you realize that even the "but that's what they will say about other people" stuff is utter fucking nonsense is even more demoralizing because you realize just where we've gotten to as a people that a massive chunk of one of the two main parties in America is unable to function right now.
posted by cashman at 2:19 PM on August 11 [4 favorites]
Those explanations do not explain how it can be that NYTimes Democratic leaning journalists--these are college educated young white professionals from liberal arts departments are suddenly, somehow, stupefied zombified and unable to write. They don't explain how it is the Editorial staff is consistently leftwing endorsing. They don't account for the intended audience of the NYTimes, versus those complaints about the NYTimes headlines as having some kind of influence on different voting demographics, which itself is a moot topic. Do people even read newspapers anymore? Why would any particular voting base care about a perceived left-wing paper of record, other than its narrow elite demographic of white-collar bourgeois-aspiring tertiary/quaternary industry gen-X types? Whatever the NYTimes says, it is just preaching to the choir of aforementioned narrow demographic. It is other media that freaks about about what the NYTimes said or didn't say, and that is dysfunctional and it is not all on the NYTimes that this happens.
Secondly, the idea of viewpoint from nowhere (there is no neutrality, etc.) is itself not really the deeper problem. The deeper problem today is that fascism breaks down discursive norms. And the inefficacy of journalism under a context of fascism is what what is really happening. So all this finger pointing at NYTimes staff is failing to recognize that editorial neutrality is maximally possible when normal discourse is possible. This goes back to Marcuse and other leftist thinkers. It is certainly not a well known way of looking at the issue (compared to the more well known debunking of Fair and Balanced reporting which is nevertheless a more superficial theory). But it explains better than the observation that the NYTimes has no ethical standard and so its standard is the lowest common denominator. An observation in those fancy terms does not explain how it got to be this way.
Thirdly fascism is not a uniquely American problem. One must ask, Why are other countries apparently different? Which is untrue. America is merely more polarized in certain specific ways, due to America being the most powerful neoliberalized nation, and having the most backward bipartisan structural politics (i.e., it needs voting system reform). But the dynamic of discursive breakdown and the resulting inability for groups to speak normal truths without having meaning and interpretation twisted to bad, unjust ends is a repetition of modern history and goes back to Marcuse's explanations of the preconditions for social and political discourse. This happens everywhere around the world and throughout history. A comprehensive understanding is required, and the internalized American exceptionalism is a special pleading argument that does not have a good explanation of why America has a different problem. Rather,
pinning all this on "bad media both-sidesism" is missing the deeper interaction of how it is fascism that creates this context on the meta level. Another way of looking at this is that fascism co-opts normal processes and utterly distorts norms and meanings and in doing so takes advantage of those institutions.
posted by polymodus at 2:46 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
Secondly, the idea of viewpoint from nowhere (there is no neutrality, etc.) is itself not really the deeper problem. The deeper problem today is that fascism breaks down discursive norms. And the inefficacy of journalism under a context of fascism is what what is really happening. So all this finger pointing at NYTimes staff is failing to recognize that editorial neutrality is maximally possible when normal discourse is possible. This goes back to Marcuse and other leftist thinkers. It is certainly not a well known way of looking at the issue (compared to the more well known debunking of Fair and Balanced reporting which is nevertheless a more superficial theory). But it explains better than the observation that the NYTimes has no ethical standard and so its standard is the lowest common denominator. An observation in those fancy terms does not explain how it got to be this way.
Thirdly fascism is not a uniquely American problem. One must ask, Why are other countries apparently different? Which is untrue. America is merely more polarized in certain specific ways, due to America being the most powerful neoliberalized nation, and having the most backward bipartisan structural politics (i.e., it needs voting system reform). But the dynamic of discursive breakdown and the resulting inability for groups to speak normal truths without having meaning and interpretation twisted to bad, unjust ends is a repetition of modern history and goes back to Marcuse's explanations of the preconditions for social and political discourse. This happens everywhere around the world and throughout history. A comprehensive understanding is required, and the internalized American exceptionalism is a special pleading argument that does not have a good explanation of why America has a different problem. Rather,
pinning all this on "bad media both-sidesism" is missing the deeper interaction of how it is fascism that creates this context on the meta level. Another way of looking at this is that fascism co-opts normal processes and utterly distorts norms and meanings and in doing so takes advantage of those institutions.
posted by polymodus at 2:46 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
If the NYT is such a fair arbitrator of todays politics, why was the Clinton hack deeply publicized endlessly such to the point the NYT made it the most important issue facing the republic yet the Trump hack materials are embargoed.
They’re soft pedaling trumps insanity with musk yesterday. Every damn day there are multiple examples of them having their finger on the scale for Trump.
At the risk of being even more repetitive- where’s the Egyptian bribe story? How come Cannons dismissal of the stolen national security secrets is memory holed (obviously it pales in comparison to the evil Clinton’s butter emails stories)? Joe Biden’s occasional slips versus Trumps accelerating delusions - obviously the former deserved endless wall to wall coverage while the latter should be not only ignored but his garbage should be cleaned up for the public? Dictator for a day? Hunter Biden versus Kuschner bribes? Poisoning the blood? Mass deportations?
If people still want to live in the fantasy world that the national politico-media cartel is a fair arbitrator, fine, whatever. But they are willfully choosing to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary
posted by WatTylerJr at 3:03 PM on August 13 [8 favorites]
They’re soft pedaling trumps insanity with musk yesterday. Every damn day there are multiple examples of them having their finger on the scale for Trump.
At the risk of being even more repetitive- where’s the Egyptian bribe story? How come Cannons dismissal of the stolen national security secrets is memory holed (obviously it pales in comparison to the evil Clinton’s butter emails stories)? Joe Biden’s occasional slips versus Trumps accelerating delusions - obviously the former deserved endless wall to wall coverage while the latter should be not only ignored but his garbage should be cleaned up for the public? Dictator for a day? Hunter Biden versus Kuschner bribes? Poisoning the blood? Mass deportations?
If people still want to live in the fantasy world that the national politico-media cartel is a fair arbitrator, fine, whatever. But they are willfully choosing to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary
posted by WatTylerJr at 3:03 PM on August 13 [8 favorites]
It looks like Politico, NYT, and Washington Post have received a number of leaked documents from the Trump campaign (particularly regarding Vance's vetting) and decided not to release them or report on their contents.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 7:09 AM on August 14 [5 favorites]
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 7:09 AM on August 14 [5 favorites]
No! They are editorially neutral or really secretly side with Harris! All the inconvenient and readily observable facts about how they prop up Trump over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again are just optical illusions you are having because you don't understand! They are not really treating Trump any differently than they treat Harris or treated Clinton! It just looks that way because photons reflected off of the Times fall into your eye where photopigments convert them into electrical impulses that are interpreted by your brain!
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:29 AM on August 14 [7 favorites]
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:29 AM on August 14 [7 favorites]
Every damn day there are multiple examples of them having their finger on the scale for Trump.
That's how they maintain "balance." But that fact says a lot about both the Republicans and the media that shills for them.
posted by Gelatin at 8:05 AM on August 14
That's how they maintain "balance." But that fact says a lot about both the Republicans and the media that shills for them.
posted by Gelatin at 8:05 AM on August 14
Has the leaker from the AP article sent those files to any other publications that would publish them or whistleblower websites? If not I wonder why not?
posted by Reverend John at 8:43 AM on August 14 [2 favorites]
posted by Reverend John at 8:43 AM on August 14 [2 favorites]
> The UK political culture is much stronger than in the US - journalists routinely ask follow-up questions in the UK
or, call out a non-answer and ask the same question again, to the point of absurdity:
Paxman-Michael Howard interview ('97) -- in which Jeremy Paxman grills former Home Secretary Michael Howard - asking him the same question 12 times. "Did you threaten to overrule him?"
posted by are-coral-made at 2:55 AM on August 15 [5 favorites]
or, call out a non-answer and ask the same question again, to the point of absurdity:
Paxman-Michael Howard interview ('97) -- in which Jeremy Paxman grills former Home Secretary Michael Howard - asking him the same question 12 times. "Did you threaten to overrule him?"
posted by are-coral-made at 2:55 AM on August 15 [5 favorites]
« Older Evaluating People-Search Site Removal Services | The Travellers' Tour Through the United States Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tristeza at 2:04 PM on August 9 [8 favorites]