Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Politics in the Media

Kromm

By Kromm
in Current Events & Politics

Recommended Posts

Bastet

Bastet

Regarding the NSA Director's comments on WikiLeaks ("this was a conscious effort by a nation state to achieve a specific effect”), the closing paragraph of this short Jezebel article is sobering:

Quote

But all this also calls to mind the Washington Post’s report on how Breitbart chair Steve Bannon subtly manipulated Donald Trump in a series of radio interviews earlier this year. It’s almost as though Donald Trump is getting played in ways he can’t possibly understand, by people with much bigger goals than merely being his friend.

  • Love 8
  • Replies 735
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

crayon78

crayon78

(edited)

I remember early in the campaign some people were using Japanese internment as justification for things they were saying, and here we go again.

https://twitter.com/bad_takes/status/799079032499343360

Quote

Trump surrogates are already citing Japanese internment camps from WW II as "precedent" for Muslim registry

One of the most shameful chapters in American history is NOT precedent you should be using. The people in power have learned nothing from history.

I will say, at least she tried to get through to him, but I really don't think it made a difference. I feel like banging my head against the wall sometimes when people keep talking about how this was done before. That doesn't make it right. THIS is exactly what people are afraid they're going to do to everyone that disagrees with them or doesn't fit into their vision of America.

Edited by Lisin
Removed twitter embed
  • Love 10
Duke Silver

Duke Silver

(edited)

^^^ What do you think "Make America Great Again" means?  It's code...always was, always will be.  Ugly precedent doesn't mean anything to these scumbags.  They want white Christian males to re-assume their "rightful" place at the head of the table.  It's not mere rhetoric.  I wish people would accept that.  It wasn't mere campaign posturing.  It's sad that so many good people are just now starting to realize.  ****I'm not pointing the finger at you @crayon78 , to be clear****

I despise Trump.  I hate his arrogant, wannabe Mussolini demeanor & strutting.  I don't trust his spoiled-rotten spawn.  However, I am reserving a special place in my hate box for the enablers, and boot lickers who are allowing all of this to happen.

Edited by Duke Silver
  • Love 17
windsprints

windsprints

Why Aren’t Donald Trump’s Epic Conflicts of Interest Illegal?

Quote

 

Is there anything the public can do to protect itself right now?

Painter recommends that Congress pass a law right now that would require that when a President or his businesses have specific matters pending before a federal agency—like, say, an Internal Revenue Service audit, or a case before the National Labor Relations Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a licensing issue before the Federal Communications Commission—that the matter must be decided by a career civil servant, rather than by a political appointee. (Trump has said that his taxes are currently under audit, and his hotels are also known to have active disputes with unions pending before the NLRB.) In the event that a White House official tried to intervene in any such matter, Painter continues, the bill he envisions would require the agency to notify the House and Senate oversight committees.

Eisen would go further still. He believes that the Congress has the constitutional power to extend the existing conflicts of interest law to cover the President, and he thinks Congress should try to do so. “If the drafters of the conflicts law had foreseen something on this scale,” he says, “they never would have exempted the President and Vice President.”

 

  • Love 7
shok

shok

On 11/15/2016 at 2:10 PM, potatoradio said:

So, it's a weird place to be in again, not trusting the MSM at all. I can watch my local news, because they don't devote much time to national issues and do a reasonable job reporting it somewhat objectively. But establishment media like the NYT, WaPo, and all the major network news and cable pundit shows on MSNBC (Maddow and Joy Reid excluded), CNN, etc.? I just don't know how strong their ethics really are. Do they care about news as a source of information to a public that needs it? Or is it all just a ratings and fun show for their bottom line? 

 

Yesterday (or the day before) CNN was doing a segment on Anderson Cooper on how different countries around the world were reacting to Trump's election. The reporter said (paraphrasing) 'Canada's President Justin Trudeau has banned Trump from entering the country'. Complete horseshit of course. First off, Canada doesn't have a president, it has a prime minister. Second of all, he said nothing of the sort. He parroted his good buddy Barack Obama by saying that Canada would work with Trump and try to make sure both countries continued their close relationship.

Thing is, the quotation came straight from one of those fake news sites that have overrun Facebook. So if CNN is using these fake sites as their source for their own news, how can you believe anything that they have to say about any subject? My fear deepens.

  • Love 8
zxy556575

zxy556575

(edited)
1 hour ago, shok said:

Thing is, the quotation came straight from one of those fake news sites that have overrun Facebook. So if CNN is using these fake sites as their source for their own news, how can you believe anything that they have to say about any subject?

If they hadn't brought it on themselves, I'd almost feel sorry for the media getting blasted from both sides. Conservatives have always derided and blamed them but now they've pissed off everyone else, too.

Article about Twitter's recent "crackdown" on hate speech:

"According to Brandwatch and anti-bullying group Ditch the Label, racist language is the most common form of hate speech on Twitter. Of the 19 million tweets analyzed by specific search terms, more than 7.7 million tweets contained racially insensitive language.

In one of the highest-profile incidents, Twitter banned Milo Yiannopoulos, a technology editor at the conservative news site Breitbart, in July for engaging in a campaign of abuse in which hundreds of anonymous Twitter accounts bombarded Ghostbuster actress Leslie Jones with racist and sexist taunts."

A report in October from The Anti-Defamation League documented the rise in anti-Semitic tweets targeting journalists who covered Trump, the Republican presidential candidate. Words that appear frequently in the profiles of these Twitter accounts: Trump, nationalist, conservative, white."

Edited by lordonia
  • Love 9
windsprints

windsprints

6 hours ago, lordonia said:

In one of the highest-profile incidents, Twitter banned Milo Yiannopoulos, a technology editor at the conservative news site Breitbart, in July for engaging in a campaign of abuse in which hundreds of anonymous Twitter accounts bombarded Ghostbuster actress Leslie Jones with racist and sexist taunts."

One of the "conservative voices" of Breitbart, how unsurprising. 

  • Love 5
zxy556575

zxy556575

Moved over from the Trump thread.

1 hour ago, windsprints said:

I don't get why people who work for news organizations who purposely spread false information aren't immediately fired. There's been so much fake information spread for the past year its just unreal.

Some accountability would be nice, right? Sadly, 90% of what the broadcast new media do these days is regurgitate one-sided press releases and then quote each other about those reports. Once in a while figureheads like Brian Williams or 60 Minutes/Dan Rather get punished, but it's rare.

If I wasn't concerned for his mental health, I'd love Jon Stewart to come back with a weekly show that focused on how badly the media is failing us, particularly the 24 hour news channels. He could do it from his house in jeans and beard!

  • Love 3
windsprints

windsprints

4 minutes ago, lordonia said:

Moved over from the Trump thread.

Some accountability would be nice, right? Sadly, 90% of what the broadcast new media do these days is regurgitate one-sided press releases and then quote each other about those reports. Once in a while figureheads like Brian Williams or 60 Minutes/Dan Rather get punished, but it's rare.

If I wasn't concerned for his mental health, I'd love Jon Stewart to come back with a weekly show that focused on how badly the media is failing us, particularly the 24 hour news channels. He could do it from his house in jeans and beard!

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver fact checks more that the cable news channels these days.  The saddest part is that no one seems to really care.

  • Love 5
Chicken Wing

Chicken Wing

4 minutes ago, windsprints said:

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver fact checks more that the cable news channels these days.  The saddest part is that no one seems to really care.

According to Politifact, Hillary Clinton told false or mostly false statements approximately 26 percent of the time -- the same measure, actually, as President Obama -- while Donald Trump clocked in at a whopping 70%. No one cares about that either.

  • Love 14
windsprints

windsprints

Just now, Chicken Wing said:

According to Politifact, Hillary Clinton told false or mostly false statements approximately 26 percent of the time -- the same measure, actually, as President Obama -- while Donald Trump clocked in at a whopping 70%. No one cares about that either.

John Oliver had those statistics in his last show too. I wonder if anyone has checked the fact checks for the 2012 election. Obvioulsy 70% is hideous; I'm more wondering what the range has been in recent elections.

  • Love 2
sum

sum

(edited)
1 hour ago, lordonia said:

Moved over from the Trump thread.

Some accountability would be nice, right? Sadly, 90% of what the broadcast new media do these days is regurgitate one-sided press releases and then quote each other about those reports. Once in a while figureheads like Brian Williams or 60 Minutes/Dan Rather get punished, but it's rare.

If I wasn't concerned for his mental health, I'd love Jon Stewart to come back with a weekly show that focused on how badly the media is failing us, particularly the 24 hour news channels. He could do it from his house in jeans and beard!

In a different method but it sounds like that's sort of what his new HBO show will be about.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/jon-stewarts-hbo-animated-cable-news-parody-1201827142/

Quote

Speaking at the Television Critics Association’s summer press tour Saturday, HBO programming president Casey Bloys discussed the multiplatform project that Stewart is working on for the premium cable channel.

“The idea is it will be an animated parody of a cable news network with an Onion-like portal,” Bloys said. The project will be structured to allow Stewart to release multiple pieces of short-form content — video and text — through HBO’s digital platforms, but will also include a linear-television element, likely in the form of a half-hour series.

Having an animation studio at his disposal will allow Stewart “to comment in real time with what’s happening during the day’s news events,” Bloys said. “It will be simple animation …  but it does allow him to respond fairly quickly to what’s going on in the day’s news.”

And this week: http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/14/westworld-season-2

Quote

Q. Has the fate of Bill Simmons’ show, or the election of Donald Trump, impacted how you much you might be relying on Jon Stewart or John Oliver in the future? Could we be getting more of either? 
Casey Bloys: I’ll take as much John Oliver as I can get. In terms of Jon Stewart, he really is putting together a whole animation studio. My hope is that it’s up and running and putting out content in first quarter of ‘17. Does the election change things? I think it’s more important, now more than ever, that we have voices like that who will parse the information and call out what’s going on. 

Edited by sum
  • Love 3
zxy556575

zxy556575

Just in passing, PolitiFact has critics who point out the site's own opinion biases and refusal to retract or change ratings when proven to be incorrect. The bigger problem is that local or even national news sources use PolitiFact as proof without doing their own fact checking. Watchdog.org calls out some of it.

Interesting article in the Columbia Journalism Review calling for the return of the journalist as malcontent.

"Journalism’s fundamental failure in this election, its original sin, is much more basic to who we are and what we are supposed to be. Simply put, it is rooted in a failure of reporting."

  • Love 6
zxy556575

zxy556575

(edited)

Nate Silver was a guest on The Daily Show this week and I had to turn away. What a cluck. This sarcastic article about Silver and the rise data journalism sums it up for me:

"It was barely eight years ago, during Obama’s candidacy that promised to Change All Reality Forever. The Republicans had pulled paper bags over their heads and declared that it was night everywhere. Suddenly, towering above all other pundits was the Math Wizard himself, Supreme Mugwump of Stats, Nate Silver. The man had come from statistics, and poker, and proved to be a deft hand at both. Silver stared over the punditocracy, and said to them, You lot have been eating scorpions and hallucinating that you have some insight into politics. I am Nate Silver, and I shall never die. That is a slight paraphrase."

Edited by lordonia
  • Love 2
potatoradio

potatoradio

Because why in the world should an NYT reporter take Trump seriously? Why on earth would it jibe with anyone's reporting that he wants to dismantle our government and shove in a fascist regime? Why would we want that kind of reporting when it's all just such fun and entertaining? This isn't a fucking joke anymore, MSM. The call is coming from inside the house, k?

11-18-2016 1-01-14 PM.png

  • Love 3
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author

I've spoken about this in a few other places (Election Anxiety, one of the threads about Seth Meyers and his Closer Look segments) but one of my biggest concerns now isn't JUST about media self-censoring in fear of Trump, but about who and what a Trump Administration is going to put in charge of media interaction/control.

The most obvious level being the FCC, but there are plenty of other worrisome layers too. The FCC being able to lean on the media companies directly (at least the broadcast ones), but given the sewage we've already seen evidenced at the FBI, and the likelihood of hardliners going into the NSA and other letter agencies, I think we're also going to get some epic levels of dirty tricks to control/influence/cow the companies which control the media sources.

How long do you all think Universal will allow Seth Meyers to call Trump to account if suddenly their core business (making movies and producing TV shows) suddenly starts losing permits or other mysterious barriers start appearing to them doing business?  Or HBO being so hands off of John Oliver if they start being challenged behind the scenes on things which the government touches and... by a series of... ehem... coincidences suddenly lets say... the HHS or EPA suddenly finds violations at their work or filming sites and shuts them down? Or TBS/Time Warner and Sam Bee?  Or going beyond the comedians, actual newsmen and women at CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc?  They're all owned by companies. And that's how slimeballs like the ones coming in are going to choke them if outright censorship laws don't come first. 

Or the plan B... J Edgar Hoover style investigations into people to dig up (or in many cases outright create) scandals to discredit them, turn the public against them, etc. That's going to work for other politicians too, besides the media company execs and on-air figures. And you don't even have to spill those scandals (be they real or fake), you just have to THREATEN to.

I think that's why we are ALREADY seeing so much softpeddling. That's the fear. If you get on the bad side of Trump being blocked from his press conferences may be the LEAST threatening thing done to people.

  • Love 3
potatoradio

potatoradio

Yep - what you described is exactly how we lose our First Amendment without it ever going through formal repeal and how citizens are kept in the dark. 

If they had ANY civic responsibility or decency, they'd be presenting those losses as real possibilities. As in, the NYT and other mainstream outlets would present articles such as "Here's how the Trump administration could cause you to lose your favorite celebrity writers, television shows, and essentially make it impossible for you to read or learn anything except their propaganda. It can happen. It might very well happen if there aren't checks and balances established right now."

But, second rule of survival in an autocratic regime: your institutions will not save you

  • Love 4
Duke Silver

Duke Silver

20 minutes ago, Kromm said:

[Fear on the part of MSM and Other Traditional Media Companies]

I agree fear is underlying some, if not most, of the transition coverage.  I don't have much sympathy, tbh.  In a supposedly free society, we need media/"the press" to stand up & do their damn jobs.  If they are soft-pedaling now in self-preservation, then there is no reason to believe it will suddenly change.  I have no time for such outlets, and hell, I've been someone banging the drum to try to support MSM....but they damn well need to do their jobs.  We need the press now, more than ever. 

  • Love 3
windsprints

windsprints

This is sickening. I feel bad even posting it (not the website, the subject matter they're writing about)

White Nationalists on Trump’s Attorney General pick: ‘It’s like Christmas’
 

Quote

 

In an article titled “It’s like Christmas,” Anglin wrote “honestly, I didn’t even expect this to all come together so beautifully. It’s like we’re going to get absolutely everything we wanted…Basically, we are looking at a Daily Stormer Dream Team in the Trump administration.”


On a thread on Stormfront, a white nationalist, white supremacist, and neo-nationalist forum, one user posted a series of smiley-faces clinking glasses and a picture of the current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, saying “I hope Jeff Sessions will investigate her along with Hillary and all other crooks.”

 

  • Love 3
potatoradio

potatoradio

I think I'm going to start thinking of the NYT and the WashPo as bellwether sources. The more they normalize Trump or pretend they can't call him what he is, or publish articles or opinions critical of the OrangeFurher or his ilk, the more I'm going to assume they're being gagged or bribed or hardlined down a particular narrative. And Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid are my failsafes. If they leave/get fired or start "toning down" their leftist leanings? Signal, to me, to assume we've all but lost the freedom of the press and are reduced to propaganda.

Meanwhile, I want to thank the poster (I can't find the post right now) who pointed me to the video of the Irish Senator, Aodhán Ó Riordáin, speaking out on Trump's fascism. Not only did that help me find The Irish Times,  but it gave me a perfectly new and healthy "guilty" crush. I would go straight in a heartbeat for that man. 

I found another article at the Irish Times that was comforting - reminds me that if our democracy can't withstand Trump, than it wasn't much of a democracy in the first place. 

  • Love 3
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author
1 hour ago, potatoradio said:

I think I'm going to start thinking of the NYT and the WashPo as bellwether sources. The more they normalize Trump or pretend they can't call him what he is, or publish articles or opinions critical of the OrangeFurher or his ilk, the more I'm going to assume they're being gagged or bribed or hardlined down a particular narrative.

The NYT has been good so far, at least on their OpEd pages

Yesterday we got their editorial board (as a whole, so they represent the official position of the paper) giving us:

Jeff Sessions as Attorney General: An Insult to Justice and Michael Flynn: An Alarming Pick for National Security Adviser

As I've mentioned before, I'm taking a big part of my baseline from the comedians. Especially the ones with TV shows on major channels. If they soften we'll know their corporate masters are leaning on them.

I am also concerned how entertainment TV (dramas, comedies, reality shows) and Movies will slowly be converted over to changing what we'll see from them, but I'm talking about that in the Politics in Entertainment thread, since I think it will be a slower and slightly different process than how the media coverage changes. 

 

Oh... another sign that the Times is on track?  They ALSO have an editorial (again from the whole Editorial board) from today called "Facebook and the Digital Virus Called Fake News".  That is VERY in the face of Trump and his election.

  • Love 2
onthebrink03

onthebrink03

^^^^^  "We won. You lost.  Get over it."  They just don't get it or they just don't want to get it.  They didn't get over Barack Obama winning, did they?  And I doubt that "getting over it" is acceptable for those who never wanted a narcissistic, thin skinned, misogynistic, racist autocrat to be elected as their President.  It's not a matter of who won or who lost.  It's a matter of doing the right thing.  It's a matter of many not believing he or his team WILL do the right thing.  And that's not because of some irrational imaginings.  That's from listening to Donald Trump's own words.

And where is their fearless leader as all this unrest is taking place?  "Stop it" didn't cut it.  He needs to step up to the podium and quell fears and try to stop the abuse that his some of his followers seem to relish. 

  • Love 12
maraleia

maraleia

51 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

 A little trivia relating to the above post: Obama famously said to the press in a hallway at the White House very soon after he was inaugurated, We won, when they asked him some questions while he was avoiding them. It was done in a very We won, you lost boo hoo way, in my opinion (and many others that I remember from the time) It was one of the first insights to Obama's mean streak and him letting people know that he wasn't interested in the other sides feelings. 

Here is a very interesting piece by someone who is not a Drumpf fan at all:

https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/20/america-called-bullshit-on-saint-hillary

A little more insight into the Hamilton issue:

http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/the-real-problem-with-the-hamilton-shout-out-to-pence/

The issue with both of these publications is they are run by right wing people so they should be taken with a grain of salt.

  • Love 7
fishcakes

fishcakes

2 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

A little trivia relating to the above post: Obama famously said to the press in a hallway at the White House very soon after he was inaugurated, We won, when they asked him some questions while he was avoiding them. It was done in a very We won, you lost boo hoo way, in my opinion (and many others that I remember from the time) It was one of the first insights to Obama's mean streak and him letting people know that he wasn't interested in the other sides feelings.

Except he never said that. The myth that he did comes from people not reading past this 2013 headline. But if you read the actual article, it states:

Quote

That's a paraphrase -- obviously. Here's what Obama actually said:

"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."

"Go out there and win an election." That's about as direct as you will ever hear a politician be about how he  feels about his opposition and how they are conducting themselves. (It's not the first time Obama has used the "I won" construct. Remember the health-care summit in early 2010 when Obama told Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): "The election is over.")

  • Love 11
spiderherky

spiderherky

No, he did say it.  In 2009.

Quote

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won_n_160401.html

fishcakes

fishcakes

9 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

I will probably drop this now, since there seems to be confusion from others about the incident I am referring to here.

I guess I'm the "others" you refer to. I don't feel too confused though. I've been hearing this story for a few years, but it's different every time I hear it. Even within these last few posts, you and @spiderherky both say it happened but cite different circumstances as to where, when, to whom it was said, and the President's tone when he said it, which is enough to call the story into question even if I hadn't heard several different versions of it over the years. I don't doubt that at some point in the last eight years, Obama may have said "I won," because he did win, twice. If the story @spiderherky linked to is true, which it could very well be, then it's not proof that Obama doesn't care about Republicans' feelings, it doesn't demonstrate a "mean streak," and it doesn't justify what we've seen Trump supporters doing over the past two weeks, which is, among other things, chanting "YOU LOST" at Starbucks baristas, theater patrons, and Latino schoolchildren, and we know for a fact those incidents happen because we've seen the videos. Dismissing those incidents by claiming that both sides do it, particularly when both sides don't do it, isn't doing anything to move the conversation forward.

  • Love 15
NewDigs

NewDigs

I'm not sure that a maybe incident of Obama, being perhaps brasher than normal, can be even closely balanced against the volume of rhetoric-on-blast that Trump has lately employed. Employed for not only the entirety of this election but at least since 2009. No google necessary.

"We won" sounds downright mild to me. 

I just hope Trump keeps on his Twitter and the press/media don't continue to attempt to normalize his behavior. And keep a close eye on his "beautiful and important win."

  • Love 10
spiderherky

spiderherky

19 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

I guess I'm the "others" you refer to. I don't feel too confused though. I've been hearing this story for a few years, but it's different every time I hear it. Even within these last few posts, you and @spiderherky both say it happened but cite different circumstances as to where, when, to whom it was said, and the President's tone when he said it, which is enough to call the story into question even if I hadn't heard several different versions of it over the years. I don't doubt that at some point in the last eight years, Obama may have said "I won," because he did win, twice. If the story @spiderherky linked to is true, which it could very well be, then it's not proof that Obama doesn't care about Republicans' feelings, it doesn't demonstrate a "mean streak," and it doesn't justify what we've seen Trump supporters doing over the past two weeks, which is, among other things, chanting "YOU LOST" at Starbucks baristas, theater patrons, and Latino schoolchildren, and we know for a fact those incidents happen because we've seen the videos. Dismissing those incidents by claiming that both sides do it, particularly when both sides don't do it, isn't doing anything to move the conversation forward.

He said it.  I made no comment as to tone or mean streak.  I merely said that he said it and provided a quote from a story.  Last time I checked, Huffington Post isn't right wing.

There are incidents happening on both sides.  Do you need me to cite them for you?  

It needs to stop - all of it.  We won't be able to move forward unless we acknowledge and respect our differences.  Demonizing each other does nothing more than widen the gap.

fishcakes

fishcakes

(edited)
19 minutes ago, spiderherky said:

I made no comment as to tone or mean streak.

Yes, I know that you didn't. I was referring to the fact that in the story you linked, he was reported to have said it "matter-of-factly," while the original poster said that he said it in a mocking way and that it demonstrated a mean streak. I have no issue with you linking a story from a reputable source, which is what you did, and I apologize for having apparently called you out, which wasn't my intention. I was only pointing out that even among people who quote Obama as having said, "I won," the circumstances surrounding it are not consistent.

Edited by fishcakes
  • Love 2
spiderherky

spiderherky

5 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

Yes, I know that you didn't. I was referring to the fact that in the story you linked, he was reported to have said it "matter-of-factly," while the original poster said that he said it in a mocking way and that it demonstrated a mean streak. I have no issue with you linking a story from a reputable source, which is what you did, and I apologize for having apparently called you out, which wasn't my intention. I was only pointing out that even among people who quote Obama as having said, "I won," the circumstances surrounding it are not consistent.

Thanks.  I appreciate that.

  • Love 1
potatoradio

potatoradio

On 11/10/2016 at 6:32 PM, Kromm said:

Here's a place to talk about where and when we are seeing that, when it's understandable, when it seems like hypocrisy, or desperate, or if an outlet doesn't do it, when they seem brave vs. the ones that just seem bitter.  All sides of this issue.

I'll be watching SNL with a lot more side-eye and interest instead of being simply entertained. I'll be watching the WU and any political sketches with an eye toward whether they're going to start to portray Trump as just a dumb, but basically good guy who kinda, whoopsies, meanders into extreme territory, or if they're going to keep up with the nuance and intelligence I thought they did last week. If they start any of this "aw, guess he's not so bad" acceptance, I'm going to be very disappointed. 

As for the MSM, I hope there is less attention paid to the most outlandish and blatantly racist/fascist stuff he says and promises to do and more scrutiny of how the right wing Republicans are trying ot use him to push a less obvious, but just as harmful, agenda. The big attacks on civil liberties get all the attention, but it's the quieter erosion they hope people won't notice. It's complex and nuanced and invisible if you don't look for it. I hope the MSM doesn't make us dig for it. Put that shit front and center. 

  • Love 6
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...