Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Politics in the Media

Kromm

By Kromm
in Current Events & Politics

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 735
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

editorgrrl

editorgrrl

From the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/05/progressive-american-values-no-compromise-trump-presidency

Quote

There’s nothing wrong with shaming people who have done shameful things. And there are few things more shameful than supporting a fascistic bigot.

Yet since the election, we’ve heard again and again that calling Trump enablers out for their bigotry is fruitless and wrong-headed. This line of argument, which comes mostly from white  men who have the privilege of seeing racism and sexism as a thought experiment rather than a destructive reality, says that ‘identity politics’ hurt Democrats and that the election is proof that feminism ‘lost’.

They know what they are doing is wrong. And it’s our job to remind them of it.

Instead of bending over backwards to bolster the self-esteem of bigots, we can make clear that the country we want is unapologetically progressive. We can refuse to normalize bigotry, shaming those who stand with Trump. That is how we build a more just society—not with kowtowing or equivocations, but with strength and truth.

  • Love 9
stillshimpy

stillshimpy

(edited)
19 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

As for Kelly herself, I'm sorry and this may be an unpopular opinion.  But, I'm not getting aboard this love train.  She spent most of the election withholding vital information about the fact that her former boss was obviously shilling for the future fuhrer to receive more positive coverage.  She was also less than forthcoming about the offer of "gifts" by the Orange Oaf, which were "clearly meant to shape coverage."  While at Faux, she used White racial anxiety to further her career and pushed out the same right wing lies as the rest of the "journalists" at Faux did.

 
 
 

I find her to be entirely despicable and have ever since she sat there sneering about how a public school teacher's life sounded pretty opulent to her because the teacher had a car and a house.  A very modest house, by the way, and an SUV of some sort that hadn't even been purchased new and was still being paid off.   This was at the same time as Fox News was talking about how percentages of poor people who had access to refrigerators, ovens, air-conditioning, TVs, etc. etc.  like it was proof that they were living the dream and bilking a system.  All along the entire study was worded to conceal that they were talking about access provided via the properties they rent since poor people seldom own property.  It's part of the reason washers and dryers aren't mentioned anywhere in that study.    So they stirred up their denture clutching base with outrage over the fact that laws protect poor people from slum lords whenever possible, therefore, yes, fridges are considered part of decent livable rental standards even for the poor.   As is heat and water but even Fox News figured out that if they framed it like that (as in, correctly) that people wouldn't be up in arms about what wonderful lives people live, where they might not freeze, or starve, so let's make sure they do!  

During that time period, Megyn fucking Kelly sat there and gave her sour-faced pronouncement about how that sounded like a pretty good life to her, therefore,  teachers unions should be abolished.   During Fox's disgusting campaign to criminalize poverty, she sat there decked out in designer wear, judging the life of a teacher as being good enough from where she sat.  

She did this with a completely straight face, as a woman who makes millions, judging someone trying to get by on a public teacher's salary -- who drove an SUV and therefore, was being overpaid (seriously that was the fucking implication -- and steal yourselves:  Kelly's father was a college professor.   Her father died when she was fifteen.  

That's how much she was willing to sell her fucking soul.  She shit on the importance of the very thing her father did.   My dad was an educator also, he similarly died (of the same damned thing, heart failure) when I was fifteen and as far as I'm concerned, she is the antichrist.   I could not dislike her any more than I do.  She's living excrement.  I don't know how any of those people ever look in the mirror without puking over the ways they have tossed away anything resembling integrity but Kelly has always struck me as being the worst of them.   

Mainly because she could have chosen to leave Fox News but it's now something like six years later and she's just getting around to it....not over "well, I sold that part of my soul and now I'm rich, maybe I should take my talents and do some good...." because the amount of harm she has actively participated in, while misleading people with faux "studies" that "proved" that poor people weren't suffering enough by Fox News standards.  As if there would be something wrong with someone owning a fridge -- forget about the study just talking about what poor people have in rental units -- or being able to live in something resembling comfort.  

I think Stephen King accidentally conjured her from the air and made her flesh or something, she's that evil in my eyes.  

 

ETA: Heh, I just read NinjaPenguins' post, thank you for the laugh.  Well done! 

Edited by stillshimpy
  • Love 20
stillshimpy

stillshimpy

(edited)

That was Gretchen Carlson, sistermagpie.   For real, here's a link to that schtick she pulled, apparently she was in a hostile work environment at the time, so maybe that explains why a woman who was cultured enough to play classical violin and is a graduate of fucking Stanford had to look up the word Czar.   

And, just because it should be said, just because I dislike Gretchen Carlson almost as much as Megyn Kelly, no one deserves to be sexually harrassed and the way she was treated at Fox News is appalling.  She just happens to be appalling also. 

Edited by stillshimpy
  • Love 5
sistermagpie

sistermagpie

9 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

 

That was Gretchen Carlson, sistermagpie.   For real, here's a link to that schtick she pulled, apparently she was in a hostile work environment at the time, so maybe that explains why a woman who was cultured enough to play classical violin and is a graduate of fucking Stanford had to look up the word Czar.   

 

Thanks for the correction! I even tried to google it to find the clip to make sure it was actually Megyn Kelly.

  • Love 1
stillshimpy

stillshimpy

You're welcome, sistermagpie, the only reason I remembered was Jon Stewart actually did an extended bit on Gretchen Carlson pretending not to know things.  I will give her this, she was at least good at seeming to be dim enough to pull that off.   "I'm not a fancy lawyer like Obama, so I looked that up...."  and if you didn't know her bio, it would be possible to believe she didn't know.   She had that wide-eyed thing going and the midwestern accent and she just tried to sell the hell out of "I can't keep many thoughts, in my generically pretty blond head, as befits us girl folk...." as an act.  

Stanford.  That woman graduated from Stanford.  She also spent a year at Oxford studying Virginia Woolf.   

There are people who smash glass ceilings and then there are women who try to make sure the ladder will always fall short, such is Gretchen Carlson.  

  • Love 4
stormy

stormy

Here we go again.  On CNN this morning, Dr Sanjay Guptah interviews another trump voter who never had healthcare, he was 100 lbs overweight and self-employed, until Ombamacare which got subsidized, now scared he's going to loose it.

What part of I'm going to repeal it on day one did you not understand?

And earlier in the week, Chuckles Ryan stood in front of the cameras, laughing, oh, we've got a plan.  No you don't.

  • Love 15
SonofaBiscuit

SonofaBiscuit

(edited)

Nope, he's not going to change his tune after the intelligence briefing today.  Man, I hope the CIA has some DAMNING evidence against him (of the audio and video sort).    

Trump Says Focus on Russian Hacking Is a ‘Political Witch Hunt’

Quote

 

Mr. Trump, who has consistently expressed doubts about the evidence of Russian hacking during the election, did so again on Friday. Asked why he thought there was so much attention being given to the Russian cyber attacks, the president-elect said the motivation is political.

“They got beaten very badly in the election. I won more counties in the election than Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Trump said during an eight-minute phone conversation. “They are very embarrassed about it. To some extent, it’s a witch hunt. They just focus on this.”

 

Quote

 

Mr. Trump said he is looking forward to his meeting Friday afternoon about the hacking by James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence; F.B.I. Director James B. Comey and other intelligence officials. He said that Mr. Clapper “wrote me a beautiful letter a few weeks ago wishing me the best.”

But he said that “a lot of mistakes were made” by the intelligence community in the past, noting in particular the attacks on the World Trade Center and saying that “weapons of mass destruction was one of the great mistakes of all time.”

 

Edited by SonofaBiscuit
  • Love 2
izabella

izabella

(edited)

^^ Someone in the Tweet round-up in this news round-up suggested that the Dems agree to make a deal:  They will repeal Obamacare if Trump agrees to keep the ACA, lol.

This item is close to the end of the news round-up, but I thought was very interesting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/01/06/daily-202-donald-trump-isolates-himself-by-living-in-a-state-of-denial-on-russia/586efd5ce9b69b36fcfeafa9/?utm_term=.17e0192a0f72

Quote

 

THE CABLE NETWORK SHUFFLE CONTINUES:

-- Fox News host Tucker Carlson is taking over Megyn Kelly’s 9 p.m. slot when she departs for NBC. It’s a significant move, and one that many believe signals Rupert Murdoch’s intention to push the network in a more pro-Trump direction. Gabriel Sherman reports: “Murdoch has been intent on forging a tight relationship with Trump since his victory … One longtime Murdoch confidante told me the two speak by phone at least three times per week. As I reported Tuesday, at Mar-a-Lago over the holidays Trump criticized Roger Ailes and lavished praise on Murdoch. People close to Murdoch are surprised by how fast Fox has fallen into line …” Murdoch’s reversal, one associate said, can partly be explained by Murdoch’s longtime desire to have a relationship with a U.S. president: “Murdoch has met every occupant of the Oval Office since Nixon, but has never had a personal connection with one. The 85-year-old Murdoch may see Trump as his last chance.”

 

So Trumputin has time to speak with Rupert Murdoch at least three times a week, but no time for his Presidential Daily Briefs.  Got it.

I was scratching my head wondering how in the world Murdoch could push Fox in a MORE pro-Trump direction, but I remembered it could always get worse, sigh.

Edited by izabella
  • Love 3
Padma

Padma

(edited)

Last night Rachel showed week after week of National Enquirer ugly fake news cover stories about Hillary leading up to the election (and a special Election Eve issue) followed by week after week about Trump's successes during the transition.

I don't know if she knows that the Nat Enq publisher is a good friend of Trump's, as she didn't mention it. But the barrage of these stories out in the supermarkets' check out counters week after week must have had some effect.

Similarly, there's Murdoch and Fox news. When Kelly left, they even said they wanted to replace her with a "pro-Trump conservative".

It would not surprise me if Bannon, Kelly and Scavino have a very well mapped out media strategy that includes not only a pro-Trump television like Fox, pro-Trump radio channels (and, of course, conspiracists like Alex Jones), pro-Trump newspapers like Nat Enq, as well as a fake news strategy for social media--esp. twitter and Facebook.

How can you fight coordinated propaganda like that, based on lies and reinforcing them daily--while Trump works overtime delegitimizing the mainstream press and the nation's intelligence agencies?

Edited by Padma
  • Love 4
MulletorHater

MulletorHater

19 minutes ago, Padma said:

Last night Rachel showed week after week of National Enquirer ugly fake news cover stories about Hillary leading up to the election (and a special Election Eve issue) followed by week after week about Trump's successes during the transition.

I don't know if she knows that the Nat Enq publisher is a good friend of Trump's, as she didn't mention it. But the barrage of these stories out in the supermarkets' check out counters week after week must have had some effect.

Similarly, there's Murdoch and Fox news. When Kelly left, they even said they wanted to replace her with a "pro-Trump conservative".

It would not surprise me if Bannon, Kelly and Scavino have a very well mapped out media strategy that includes not only a pro-Trump television like Fox, pro-Trump radio channels (and, of course, conspiracists like Alex Jones), pro-Trump newspapers like Nat Enq, as well as a fake news strategy for social media--esp. twitter and Facebook.

How can you fight coordinated propaganda like that, based on lies and reinforcing them daily--while Trump works overtime delegitimizing the mainstream press and the nation's intelligence agencies?

I caught Rachel's segment last night about the National Birdcage Liner and its cover stories of Hillary.  Very telling is that this same rag sat on the "explosive" story about Drumpf and an alleged mistress and all but ensured she couldn't peddle her wares elsewhere to another publication.  Disaster averted, I guess.  

What's particularly infuriating though is the way some prominent progressives such as Ed Schultz (now at RT) insist that the Russian hack was manufactured by the Clinton campaign.  Evidently, they're still pissed to highest of pissivity that Bernie was denied the nomination (although he wasn't a true Democrat).  So, instead of focusing on the fact that a foreign power hacked the DNC and Podesta's private emails and then leaked them for the benefit of Hillary's opponent, they have been accusing the Clinton campaign of "shooting the messenger" (according to Tom Hartmann).  It's fascinating that the more evidence is revealed about Putin's complicity in the hacking of our election and other areas such as Vermont's electrical grid, the more Schultz, other progressive commentators and BoB's double down on their attacks against the DNC, Hillary and Podesta.  Like, what in the ever loving fuck?

  • Love 6
Treehugger

Treehugger

On 1/3/2017 at 6:03 PM, parisprincess said:

I have a question that I'm sure someone here can answer: What is the best way to contact legislators, newscasters, newspapers, etc. - letter? email? phone call?

I'm ready to go to war and want to send a message to a whole bunch of people in the groups noted above. I want to use the means that will have the best chance of getting to the people I'm targeting. I'm currently putting my thoughts together, and I hope you all don't mind that I've helped myself to some of your ideas. I see posts that make me think "Oh, I want to touch on that too!" There are so many things I'm livid about so it will be a challenge to try to keep it short enough that I don't lose my audience.

This is a late response, but I have some thoughts.  I've been focusing on calling legislators at their local offices.  If those numbers are busy, I try their DC phone numbers.  It was interesting today that I tried to call all of Paul Ryan's numbers, local and DC, and couldn't get through on any of them because they were all busy.  I took to Facebook and posted on Ryan's page the concerns that I had wanted to discuss via phone and recommended that he add extra phone numbers so that citizens of the US could reach him.

I've been making so many calls and Facebook postings that I started a spreadsheet about the nature of the contacts and the response that I received.  On Monday, my local congressman's staff is holding a constituent meeting so I'm planning on attending that meeting and making my concerns known.

My thoughts are not based on any feedback or research, but I've found it satisfying to (1) place calls and speak to a live person, (2) post results on Facebook, (3) update on Twitter.  I may add a fourth step and start writing letters.

As for newscasters and newspapers, I haven't made any contacts because I've been so disillusioned with the bias of reporting for Trump.  

  • Love 8
NewDigs

NewDigs

(edited)
35 minutes ago, Treehugger said:

As for newscasters and newspapers, I haven't made any contacts because I've been so disillusioned with the bias of reporting for Trump.  

Three women operating under the ideas of the IndivisibleGuide mentioned, in a vid. on Rachel, that the real bonus of their personal visit to their rep's office was that they informed the media (via press release) about their (protest) intentions and the media showed up! 

Edited by NewDigs
  • Love 3
stormy

stormy

(edited)

I'm no fan of Glenn Greenwald, but he was on Democracy Now this morning and honestly, I was a Glenn fan, for today at least.

His interview is posted on the Democracy Now website.  The part that was the most interesting and even scary, to me, was his opinion of fat ass's use of twitter.  It was hitleresque so calling him fat ass may be down the tubes for me.  I may have to go with the Twittler name from here on in.

Also, he as an article on Intercept, his website, about the fake news the WAPO ran about the hacking of the Vermont electric grid, which Glenn says was not so.  And the WAPO never retracked the story.

Edited by stormy
  • Love 1
Padma

Padma

Washington Post is trying a new way to fact check Trump.  Instead of just looking at statements to assign "Pinocchios" of truth/falseness, they are going to look WEEKLY at his tweets and fact check them all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/06/what-trump-got-wrong-on-twitter-this-week/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_factchecker-815am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.5a8d9ed9dc83#comments

Seems like a good way to tackle a serial liar who says so many false things on a given day that those individual "4 Pinocchio statements" just blend into the overall pattern, barely making a dent in public awareness. They'll still do them, but for BIG THINGs, while trying to keep up with fact-checking the lies he spews out every day.  Ambitious! 

  • Love 7
Bastet

Bastet

Cleaning up some bookmarks, I realized I never posted this; I guess I better do so while I still can. 

A pre-election survey showed nearly half of those who planned to vote for Trump opposed defunding Planned Parenthood (despite the fact Trump had vowed to do so unless it stopped providing abortion services - after having said differently in the past, of course).  So, last month, PP convened focus groups in several cities, some with a mix of Trump and Clinton voters, some with only Trump voters, trying to figure out why those who oppose defunding PP (often because they relied on its services) would vote for the guy who promised to do so.

Surprise, surprise.  Once again, many people either didn't know what he'd said, or did but didn't take it seriously.

Salon coverage

Washington Post coverage

  • Love 10
sistermagpie

sistermagpie

Weekly fact checks of Trump makes me think of the Fox & Friends parody they do on SNL. They always pause to do a list of "corrections" from the first hour of the show and if you pause it and read the corrections (they scroll by really fast because they've lie so much there's a lot) they're hysterical and...sadly really not far off from what a Trump fact check will look like:

-Chicklets do not grow up to be roosters.

-Chris Christie was never in the show Three’s Company.

-Mexico is not going to pay us back for building a wall on their border.

-Julian Assange did not help Rambo rescue John McCain from Vietnam.

-Neither did Donald Trump.

etc...

  • Love 7
NewDigs

NewDigs

14 minutes ago, Pixel said:

I like MSNBC on XM because it's just a broadcast of the TV channel, and so far MSNBC seems to be the channel I can tolerate best for relatively factual information. 

They were my go-to but it's MorningJoe for my work drive. I started switching to CNN because of MJ and have found them to be some better. Especially at challenging surrogates, or whatever those people are now calling themselves.

MTP is not too bad and even RevAl Sunday mornings can be good.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...