US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

It's not just a tweet though, is it? It's the guy himself denying he recanted his claim. Yet the press couldn't even include his denial in the "story" for balance.

I'm surprised you still give some of these outlets such credibility when it comes to political reporting. It's gone so far down the toilet, that even describing half of these people as journalists is an extreme stretch. They're just actors.

sadly I've seen too many Trump officials/supporters say one thing to the media and another under oath to just swallow this type of stuff wholesale. In any case, to the larger issue, I don't believe any of this stuff will materially impact the results. Nor do GOP officials when interviewed on background. This is part grift, and partly with Georgia run-offs on the mind. Only the true believers are really taking this seriously. It's funny to me that the only really documented cases of electoral fraud (not the stuff of the tin-foil hat variety) that's occurred in recent years have been on the Republican side. The whole thing is crazy to me. Dems are vegetarians as we all know. They don't have the guts to do the things they are being accused of, until Republicans lose then all of a sudden these nasty Dems are the scions of beelzebub. It's comical They didn't even have the smarts to cheat their way to state legislature and senatorial victories at the same time? Don't make me laugh...

 

[Kieran]

It's always been biased, but the levels right now are off the charts - probably because the news industry has been consolidated over the years and are now controlled by a very small cabal. Not just the US Election - it's also been happening with COVID. All dissenting opinions crushed.

Absolutely, and I think that anyone who is interested in discerning where the truth is, and not just wanting their side to win, ought to be very concerned...

 

[britbox]

sadly I've seen too many Trump officials/supporters say one thing to the media and another under oath to just swallow this type of stuff wholesale. In any case, to the larger issue, I don't believe any of this stuff will materially impact the results. Nor do GOP officials when interviewed on background. This is part grift, and partly with Georgia run-offs on the mind. Only the true believers are really taking this seriously. It's funny to me that the only really documented cases of electoral fraud (not the stuff of the tin-foil hat variety) that's occurred in recent years have been on the Republican side. The whole thing is crazy to me. Dems are vegetarians as we all know. They don't have the guts to do the things they are being accused of, until Republicans lose then all of a sudden these nasty Dems are the scions of beelzebub. It's comical They didn't even have the smarts to cheat their way to state legislature and senatorial victories at the same time? Don't make me laugh...

You're integrating two different things here. Media Reporting and Political Party Ethics. I don't think either political side has "ethics" in respect of a "Queensberry rules" approach.

As for media reporting, none of the current mainstream media channels are interested in truth or balance, just outcomes. It's propaganda, not news. I think deep down, you know this.

 

[britbox]

Absolutely, and I think that anyone who is interested in discerning where the truth is, and not just wanting their side to win, ought to be very concerned...

Probably. But I think we're all guilty of skim reading bullshit we know is probably false or at best a half-truth and yet our own biases kick in and we let it pass if it contributes to an outcome we prefer.

 

[Federberg]

You're integrating two different things here. Media Reporting and Political Party Ethics. I don't think either political side has "ethics" in respect of a "Queensberry rules" approach.

As for media reporting, none of the current mainstream media channels are interested in truth or balance, just outcomes. It's propaganda, not news. I think deep down, you know this.

sorry mate. That's always been your narrative not mine. Never has been. I have never been of the belief that media (proper media, or journalism if you will, not partisan websites) has any political agenda per se. My issue has always been about competence, and an inability to report in a highly partisan environment. Just look at the contortions to be balanced that the NYT went through in 15/16, which ended up being a significant component of the Clinton defeat. I agree with you in general about the willingness of both sides to lie, or at least to obfuscate the truth. But what we're seeing from the GOP and specifically the Trump Administration is a cat of a different stripe. They've gone all in on mendacity, to such an extent Goebbels and his greatest students the Soviets would be proud. The media is currently not set up to handle this type of thing. It's going to take time for that industry to come to terms with the world as it is. I feel they're about 10 years behind and until institutions like the NYT are able to sit down and admit their horrendous errors nothing will change

 

[britbox]

sorry mate. That's always been your narrative not mine. Never has been. I have never been of the belief that media (proper media, or journalism if you will, not partisan websites) has any political agenda per se. My issue has always been about competence, and an inability to report in a highly partisan environment. Just look at the contortions to be balanced that the NYT went through in 15/16, which ended up being a significant component of the Clinton defeat. I agree with you in general about the willingness of both sides to lie, or at least to obfuscate the truth. But what we're seeing from the GOP and specifically the Trump Administration is a cat of a different stripe. They've gone all in on mendacity, to such an extent Goebbels and his greatest students the Soviets would be proud. The media is currently not set up to handle this type of thing. It's going to take time for that industry to come to terms with the world as it is. I feel they're about 10 years behind and until institutions like the NYT are able to sit down and admit their horrendous errors nothing will change

That's where we'll have to disagree. If the NYT trying to be balanced contributed to a Clinton defeat, then maybe she deserved it. Otherwise, you're basically admitting that the press had to be partisan to deliver her.

The NYT and WAPO are by any definition, partisan publications when it comes to politics. In fact, I'll ask you to name a mainstream media outlet that isn't partisan? USA Today is better than most, but still centre left. Most of the best reporting I read comes from non-Anglo foreign press.

The media isn't going to win hearts and minds through censorship or ridicule, so on that point I'd agree it's years behind in it's approach. Large segments of the industry have blown their credibility over the last four years and just become hives for partisan politics and "outcome" writing.

Consolidation of western media interests that account for 80-90% of news delivery among 5 or 6 mammoth corporations is actually bad news, not good.

 

[Federberg]

That's where we'll have to disagree. If the NYT trying to be balanced contributed to a Clinton defeat, then maybe she deserved it. Otherwise, you're basically admitting that the press had to be partisan to deliver her.

The NYT and WAPO are by any definition, partisan publications when it comes to politics. In fact, I'll ask you to name a mainstream media outlet that isn't partisan? USA Today is better than most, but still centre left. Most of the best reporting I read comes from non-Anglo foreign press.

The media isn't going to win hearts and minds through censorship or ridicule, so on that point I'd agree it's years behind in it's approach. Large segments of the industry have blown their credibility over the last four years and just become hives for partisan politics and "outcome" writing.

Consolidation of western media interests that account for 80-90% of news delivery among 5 or 6 mammoth corporations is actually bad news, not good.

Nope. Trump was spewing one bit of nonsense after another, and NYT, in order to maintain a narrative of balance kept pounding away about emails. The simple fact is if one candidate continuously generates one controversy after another, it's not up to the media to manufacture a narrative for the other candidate to maintain balance. The job of the media is to report the news that's all. It's amazing that seems controversial these days. It's not up to the NYT to feel that because one candidate is doing crazy shit they are obligated to find some crazy shit about the other. But that's exactly what they did. They didn't report new facts, they just kept repeating the same thing over and over again. And the public became conditioned to believe the emails were a bigger deal than they were. So when Comey comes along a week before Election Day and says..."erm... those emails" it's the final straw that takes away her chance to at least match Trump with swing voters. It was tremendously damaging. It is what it is. It would be silly to claim that the NYT was shilling for Trump, but they might as well have been.

 

[tented]

This discussion reminds me of the film The Insider — an excellent account of how business/financial interests have come to affect how news organizations report (in this case Big Tobacco) in the age of mega-corporations.

 

[Federberg]

This discussion reminds me of the film The Insider — an excellent account of how business/financial interests have come to affect how news organizations report (in this case Big Tobacco) in the age of mega-corporations.

I love that movie

 

[kskate2]

sorry mate. That's always been your narrative not mine. Never has been. I have never been of the belief that media (proper media, or journalism if you will, not partisan websites) has any political agenda per se. My issue has always been about competence, and an inability to report in a highly partisan environment. Just look at the contortions to be balanced that the NYT went through in 15/16, which ended up being a significant component of the Clinton defeat. I agree with you in general about the willingness of both sides to lie, or at least to obfuscate the truth. But what we're seeing from the GOP and specifically the Trump Administration is a cat of a different stripe. They've gone all in on mendacity, to such an extent Goebbels and his greatest students the Soviets would be proud. The media is currently not set up to handle this type of thing. It's going to take time for that industry to come to terms with the world as it is. I feel they're about 10 years behind and until institutions like the NYT are able to sit down and admit their horrendous errors nothing will change

There are 2 main reasons why Hillary lost and media coverage or the NYT in particular was not one of them.
1. She was not likable
2. She ran a piss-poor campaign

 

[Federberg]

There are 2 main reasons why Hillary lost and media coverage or the NYT in particular was not one of them.
1. She was not likable
2. She ran a piss-poor campaign

she was certainly not likeable, no one can argue with that. Her campaign was not good either, it was horribly complacent. But let's not kid ourselves, Trump wasn't exactly beloved either, and she would have held on but for Comey. I won't even talk about how some of the anti-Catholic stuff from Wikileaks damaged her in the mid-West. But... and I'm not actually singling out the NYT.. there was an excessive focus on her emails by the media ( a lot of research on this after the fact, great scholarship, if I remember the book title I'll post it). And then on top of that Wikileaks comes along and what's it about? Hacked emails. Nothing huge in it, but just enough to pad the narrative of a secretive elitist which was exactly what the electorate didn't want in that moment. That was bad enough... and she seemed to be hanging on, and then wham! Comey in the last 10 days was fatal. She had the disadvantage of incumbency in a change moment, but was still so obviously more competent than her opponent, but there it was emails again. And she was done. It's worth bearing in mind that the woman left her role as Secretary of State with sky high polling. But the GOP (and I say this with grudging admiration) are masters of constructing a negative narrative against potential opponents. Interestingly the whole Hunter Biden thing failed this time, but it was part of the same strategy. This is not controversial, such luminaries as Kevin McCarthy worked hard to damage her "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."

We can try to simplify her defeat if we want to, but a lot went into it

 

[kskate2]

she was certainly not likeable, no one can argue with that. Her campaign was not good either, it was horribly complacent. But let's not kid ourselves, Trump wasn't exactly beloved either, and she would have held on but for Comey. I won't even talk about how some of the anti-Catholic stuff from Wikileaks damaged her in the mid-West. But... and I'm not actually singling out the NYT.. there was an excessive focus on her emails by the media ( a lot of research on this after the fact, great scholarship, if I remember the book title I'll post it). And then on top of that Wikileaks comes along and what's it about? Hacked emails. Nothing huge in it, but just enough to pad the narrative of a secretive elitist which was exactly what the electorate didn't want in that moment. That was bad enough... and she seemed to be hanging on, and then wham! Comey in the last 10 days was fatal. She had the disadvantage of incumbency in a change moment, but was still so obviously more competent than her opponent, but there it was emails again. And she was done. It's worth bearing in mind that the woman left her role as Secretary of State with sky high polling. But the GOP (and I say this with grudging admiration) are masters of constructing a negative narrative against potential opponents. Interestingly the whole Hunter Biden thing failed this time, but it was part of the same strategy. This is not controversial, such luminaries as Kevin McCarthy worked hard to damage her "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."

We can try to simplify her defeat if we want to, but a lot went into it

You're making my case for me. She knew about all of the Republican poisonous arrows. Why wouldn't she already have a response or a way to shift the focus. Fight fire with fire. It was no surprise what their tactics were going to be. They've been using the same playbook for decades. Knowing that, she should have run a better campaign. She and she alone are responsible for her loss just as Trump is now responsible for his.

 

[Federberg]

You're making my case for me. She knew about all of the Republican poisonous arrows. Why wouldn't she already have a response or a way to shift the focus. Fight fire with fire. It was no surprise what their tactics were going to be. They've been using the same playbook for decades. Knowing that, she should have run a better campaign. She and she alone are responsible for her loss just as Trump is now responsible for his.

She knew what the Republicans were likely to do. But I don't understand your point. She didn't know Comey was going to twice break protocol. How could she account for that? She didn't know that Wikileaks would happen either. Let's not act as if exceptional factors didn't occur that no single other candidate in history has ever had to deal with. Maybe it's just me but I find it extraordinary what hurdles the woman had to fight through. I'm not asking anyone to give her sympathy but I just see very little objectivity about her. It's amazing, but I guess it's just me

 

[Federberg]

Preach...

 

[Federberg]

Also fascinating to watch as case after case is being dismissed in the courts. And some of them are even being withdrawn by Trump Campaign lawyers. But hey ho... I"ll just go on twitter and believe what I see there. Never mind that not a single case has been found to have merit. After 4 years of court packing, they can't find a single judge that buys what they're selling? It's a conspiracy I tell ya...

 

[Moxie]

You're integrating two different things here. Media Reporting and Political Party Ethics. I don't think either political side has "ethics" in respect of a "Queensberry rules" approach.

As for media reporting, none of the current mainstream media channels are interested in truth or balance, just outcomes. It's propaganda, not news. I think deep down, you know this.

This cynical position makes me very sad. You really believe that there is no truth or ethics left in the mainstream media? That there are no journalists who care about what they do? Everyone is hacking for one party or the other?

 

[britbox]

This cynical position makes me very sad. You really believe that there is no truth or ethics left in the mainstream media? That there are no journalists who care about what they do? Everyone is hacking for one party or the other?

Not much of it (truth or ethics). It's not really passing for journalism - it's carefully curated news to fit a particular narrative (with little balance).

 

[Moxie]

Not much of it (truth or ethics). It's not really passing for journalism - it's carefully curated news to fit a particular narrative (with little balance).

So there really are no journalists anymore, according to you? They are tools of their bosses, who have another agenda? I will say again: this POV makes me very sad.

 

[britbox]

So there really are no journalists anymore, according to you? They are tools of their bosses, who have another agenda? I will say again: this POV makes me very sad.

 

[britbox]

So there really are no journalists anymore, according to you? They are tools of their bosses, who have another agenda? I will say again: this POV makes me very sad.

Of course there are real journalists. I'm specifically singling out mainstream political "journalists" in the USA. Sure, you get a few with some objectivity but they are few and far between. i.e. Chris Wallace asks Trump a few reasonable questions and he's labelled a shill for the Democrats. Shapiro quit an Andrew Neil interview, accusing him of being a leftist (which if you knew him, you'd find completely laughable). Then there are the likes of Hannity, Cuomo and Lemon who seem to have the sole purpose of causing complete division. As for the NYT, you're probably aware of longstanding staff members walking out. Most of the better investigative journalists are independent.