From this point on, speculating in thread about the age of someone's account or their possible status as a russian plant is an instant jailing and dismissal from the thread.
Russia is everything the GOP aspires to make America: a racist, authoritarian, kleptocracy that bullies its neighbors.
Their base would fucking LOVE if our government could take Putin's stance on journalism
I've noticed a lot of loathing for the press on both the left and the right and I'm starting to think this has got to be Russian influence. Putin hates the press, even going as far as having journalists critical of him killed. Left wingers should think twice before spouting off the sort of nonsense I'm always hearing, about the US press being garbage and secretly wanting Trump even if they endorsed Clinton. Remember, we wouldn't know any of this stuff without the press.
Eeeennnggghhh...
I think we can call shenanigans on CNN thinking Trump's podium being more important than Clinton's speech while still giving them credit when they do things right, like with their current coverage of the dossier.
Please do criticize CNN if you want. But don't damn all the media by one big outlet. The media have largely been very good at alerting the public to Trump being crazy and incompetent; that's how we know
Be very aware the generalized hate of the media seem to have a certain... sameness... on the far left and the far right. And be conscious of the recent discoveries that Putin attempted to influence the far left as well as the far right. Be aware that in trying not to be taken as a sucker, you may be taken as a different sort of sucker.
But the media hasn't been good at that. They never treated Trump or Clinton very seriously during the election. Clinton was nothing but scandals and Trump was just a joke according to them.
The only sameness here is in your own head. There's a difference between people thinking most of the media is bad at their jobs and Trump and his supporters throwing around lügenpresse without any irony.
THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS is what is starting to make me go all "Reds under the beds" because it doesn't line up with the real world, but is surely what Putin wants Americans to think. He wants people to doubt and hate the independent media and lap up all those dubious Facebook forwards we see. I have blocked all of them, left or right, from my feed, and am starting to think this is the reason why I don't see the "ALL MEDIA IS EVIL AND WRONG" stuff that the left is spouting right now. I'm judging the media on... what I read in the media, not what some overheated blogger says about the media in a Facebook forward.
And I have to say, the media is pretty good, despite a tough job. They've kept me well informed. I've read many well-written articles on Trump and Clinton.
As for the media treating Trump as a joke. HELLO? He was, and is, a joke. The media informed us correctly. I cannot comprehend exactly what possessed the American public to vote for a joke that they knew was a joke. But how could the media do anything else than present Trump as an absurd clown? HE IS an absurd clown. That is God's honest truth.
Russia is everything the GOP aspires to make America: a racist, authoritarian, kleptocracy that bullies its neighbors.
Their base would fucking LOVE if our government could take Putin's stance on journalism
I've noticed a lot of loathing for the press on both the left and the right and I'm starting to think this has got to be Russian influence. Putin hates the press, even going as far as having journalists critical of him killed. Left wingers should think twice before spouting off the sort of nonsense I'm always hearing, about the US press being garbage and secretly wanting Trump even if they endorsed Clinton. Remember, we wouldn't know any of this stuff without the press.
Eeeennnggghhh...
I think we can call shenanigans on CNN thinking Trump's podium being more important than Clinton's speech while still giving them credit when they do things right, like with their current coverage of the dossier.
Please do criticize CNN if you want. But don't damn all the media by one big outlet. The media have largely been very good at alerting the public to Trump being crazy and incompetent; that's how we know
Be very aware the generalized hate of the media seem to have a certain... sameness... on the far left and the far right. And be conscious of the recent discoveries that Putin attempted to influence the far left as well as the far right. Be aware that in trying not to be taken as a sucker, you may be taken as a different sort of sucker.
But the media hasn't been good at that. They never treated Trump or Clinton very seriously during the election. Clinton was nothing but scandals and Trump was just a joke according to them.
The only sameness here is in your own head. There's a difference between people thinking most of the media is bad at their jobs and Trump and his supporters throwing around lügenpresse without any irony.
THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS is what is starting to make me go all "Reds under the beds" because it doesn't line up with the real world, but is surely what Putin wants Americans to think. He wants people to doubt and hate the independent media and lap up all those dubious Facebook forwards we see. I have blocked all of them, left or right, from my feed, and am starting to think this is the reason why I don't see the "ALL MEDIA IS EVIL AND WRONG" stuff that the left is spouting right now. I'm judging the media on... what I read in the media, not what some overheated blogger says about the media in a Facebook forward.
And I have to say, the media is pretty good, despite a tough job. They've kept me well informed. I've read many well-written articles on Trump and Clinton.
As for the media treating Trump as a joke. HELLO? He was, and is, a joke. The media informed us correctly. I cannot comprehend exactly what possessed the American public to vote for a joke that they knew was a joke. But how could the media do anything else than present Trump as an absurd clown? HE IS an absurd clown. That is God's honest truth.
They never treated him as someone who might be President until like 10 PM on election night.
More to the point, here's the nation's foremost newspaper, which is supposedly liberal:
The story was "FBI Finds Same E-Mails Again." This was less than two weeks before the election.
If the mainstream, corporate media didn't suck, Russia's fantastically ridiculous ploy of "selectively release Clinton e-mails, hyping them as revealing her as corrupt" would never have worked.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The NYT front page seems fine to me, that's how it happened. Note that New York voted Clinton by a *landslide.* So if the wily media was trying to influence the voters secretly to vote Trump, they certainly fucked up.
If you have ever read the NYT you'd see that it is actually pretty "conservative" in the European sense. It's not Mother Jones by any means. I get the strong feeling that they'd love to be completely unaligned but Republicans are so goddamn crazy that they end up coming down on the Democrat side because it's the only one that isn't certifiable. The NYT is the paper that Wall Street reads, remember (oh and also the WSJ) - they are definitely aimed at people with money. It's pretty hilarious how in their lifestyle sections they are presenting people buying $1 million apartments as "budget conscious" and "struggling."
That's three above the fold stories to something that was absolutely nothing. And the Times is one of three national papers we have, it's not limited to New York. That's hilariously myopic.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The NYT front page seems fine to me, that's how it happened. Note that New York voted Clinton by a *landslide.* So if the wily media was trying to influence the voters secretly to vote Trump, they certainly fucked up.
If you have ever read the NYT you'd see that it is actually pretty "conservative" in the European sense. It's not Mother Jones by any means. I get the strong feeling that they'd love to be completely unaligned but Republicans are so goddamn crazy that they end up coming down on the Democrat side because it's the only one that isn't certifiable. The NYT is the paper that Wall Street reads, remember (oh and also the WSJ) - they are definitely aimed at people with money. It's pretty hilarious how in their lifestyle sections they are presenting people buying $1 million apartments as "budget conscious" and "struggling."
that NYT font page is based solely on the comey letter which barely said ANYTHING. The NYT took up their whole front page with nothing but wild speculation.
That's three above the fold stories to something that was absolutely nothing. And the Times is one of three national papers we have, it's not limited to New York. That's hilariously myopic.
Said better than I could. Yes that's how it happened. Yes it was a headline, deservedly. But literally every inch above the fold was dedicated to something that "might" turn out to be a story (and didn't). Days before the election.
I seriously don't see it. That's what happened. The NYT reported on it. I guess they sucked in terms of not saying "Oh, and our crystal ball tells us it will turn out to be a big load of nothing." NYT reporters: Not psychic.
I seriously don't see it. That's what happened. The NYT reported on it. I guess they sucked in terms of not saying "Oh, and our crystal ball tells us it will turn out to be a big load of nothing." NYT reporters: Not psychic.
Nothing about that story at the time suggested it should occupy 100% of the above-the-fold space.
+31
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Somebody want to dig up the NYT front page from the other day, when breaking news about Trump possibly being a traitor and compromised by the Russian government resulted in one small below the fold story?
I seriously don't see it. That's what happened. The NYT reported on it. I guess they sucked in terms of not saying "Oh, and our crystal ball tells us it will turn out to be a big load of nothing." NYT reporters: Not psychic.
Nothing about that story at the time suggested it should occupy 100% of the above-the-fold space.
Well except "FBI, breaking all precedent, tries to swing election 11 days out." That's a pretty big story.
EDIT: To bring this more on topic and less from the media thread (seriously, read that thread and its predecessors, the media is... not good at their jobs and this is not a new complaint): the Russian hacks would not work if the media wasn't consistently willing to see the absolute worst in Clinton and comically over inflate the importance of negative stories about her.
She got more negative coverage than fucking Trump! The dominant story of this campaign was her e-mail management. How does that make any sense?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Somebody want to dig up the NYT front page from the other day, when breaking news about Trump possibly being a traitor and compromised by the Russian government resulted in one small below the fold story?
I remember them having a fuck of a lot of it when it broke, but perhaps the print edition was different. Amusingly, they left out the dirty sex stuff. Oh that old grey lady!
I seriously don't see it. That's what happened. The NYT reported on it. I guess they sucked in terms of not saying "Oh, and our crystal ball tells us it will turn out to be a big load of nothing." NYT reporters: Not psychic.
When the e-mails contained nothing, continued to contain nothing, officially reported by the government to contain nothing, and months later still contained nothing, it was time to stop reporting on them. But the media did not. Because for some idiot reason they need for there to be "balance" between a man who spewed unending bigotry and a woman who had a private e-mail server.
Trump was aided by the media hands down. I don't think maliciously, obvious news sources aside, but most of them certainly out of incompetence. And he's only kinda sorta getting the coverage he deserves now when there's no one competing with him.
I seriously don't see it. That's what happened. The NYT reported on it. I guess they sucked in terms of not saying "Oh, and our crystal ball tells us it will turn out to be a big load of nothing." NYT reporters: Not psychic.
I don't think maliciously, obvious news sources aside, but most of them certainly out of incompetence. And he's only kinda sorta getting the coverage he deserves now when there's no one competing with him.
They aren't saying a damn thing different about him now than when he was running. Odd that you are *hearing* it different. They always portrayed him as insane and dangerous. Perhaps it was *you* who were all "Eh, no-one is going to be stupid enough to vote for this clown." Because I remember a lot of that here right before the election. "The media" is *also* what we say here on chat forums and sites, not just big important newspapers. I remember being blasted (on another similar site to this) due to merely suggesting that maybe Nate Silver's moderate pessimism about Clinton's chances wasn't just him trolling for clicks. But everyone has forgotten that now.
As for incompetence, I remember that time and the NYT were reporting on what people were talking about. That's what the news does. If they bury stuff because they think the public ought not to talk about it, you don't like that, do you?
I seriously don't see it. That's what happened. The NYT reported on it. I guess they sucked in terms of not saying "Oh, and our crystal ball tells us it will turn out to be a big load of nothing." NYT reporters: Not psychic.
I don't think maliciously, obvious news sources aside, but most of them certainly out of incompetence. And he's only kinda sorta getting the coverage he deserves now when there's no one competing with him.
They aren't saying a damn thing different about him now than when he was running. Odd that you are *hearing* it different. They always portrayed him as insane and dangerous. Perhaps it was *you* who were all "Eh, no-one is going to be stupid enough to vote for this clown." Because I remember a lot of that here right before the election. "The media" is *also* what we say here on chat forums and sites, not just big important newspapers. I remember being blasted (on another similar site to this) due to merely suggesting that maybe Nate Silver's moderate pessimism about Clinton's chances wasn't just him trolling for clicks. But everyone has forgotten that now.
As for incompetence, I remember that time and the NYT were reporting on what people were talking about. That's what the news does. If they bury stuff because they think the public ought not to talk about it, you don't like that, do you?
Reporting on what people were talking about isn't news, it's gossip.
I seriously don't see it. That's what happened. The NYT reported on it. I guess they sucked in terms of not saying "Oh, and our crystal ball tells us it will turn out to be a big load of nothing." NYT reporters: Not psychic.
I don't think maliciously, obvious news sources aside, but most of them certainly out of incompetence. And he's only kinda sorta getting the coverage he deserves now when there's no one competing with him.
They aren't saying a damn thing different about him now than when he was running. Odd that you are *hearing* it different. They always portrayed him as insane and dangerous. Perhaps it was *you* who were all "Eh, no-one is going to be stupid enough to vote for this clown." Because I remember a lot of that here right before the election. "The media" is *also* what we say here on chat forums and sites, not just big important newspapers. I remember being blasted (on another similar site to this) due to merely suggesting that maybe Nate Silver's moderate pessimism about Clinton's chances wasn't just him trolling for clicks. But everyone has forgotten that now.
As for incompetence, I remember that time and the NYT were reporting on what people were talking about. That's what the news does. If they bury stuff because they think the public ought not to talk about it, you don't like that, do you?
Reporting on what people were talking about isn't news, it's gossip.
As I noted, it was news. Probably even above-the-fold news. But not 100% of above-the-fold news. Yeah, at that point they were a tabloid.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Yeah I feel like I had a pretty strong "he's on the ballot in all fifty states, he can win" attitude. I thought it unlikely, but from the moment of the nomination I felt the dread of it's absolute possibility.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Pretty much after the debates the media got tired of punching Donald Trump for a while. So they jumped on the opportunity to get in a little Hilary news
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Pretty much after the debates the media got tired of punching Donald Trump for a while. So they jumped on the opportunity to get in a little Hilary news
The media never stopped shitting on Hillary. Never ever.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
I haven't forgotten. A big part of why the loss hit me so hard is that all of the data pointed to a Clinton win. I'm an engineer, my whole life is making decisions based on data. I ignored the Trump bumper stickers and billboards and the assclown waving a Trump sign on the streetcorner like one of those Little Caesars guys because the data told me we were safe. I volunteered with the Clinton campaign and was specifically told by their lead staffer "Our data is telling us that we just need to get our base out to vote, we don't need to worry about convincing independents."
And then the data was wrong, and I still don't know what to do about it.
The Hill reports that a number of Democrats emerged from the meeting convinced that Comey is “unfit to to lead the agency:”
“I was non-judgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him,” Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol.
“Some of the things that were revealed in this classified briefing — my confidence has been shook.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, delivered a similar condemnation.
“I’m extremely concerned — extremely,” he said.
“I’ll just — I’m very angry,” echoed Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.).
Russia is everything the GOP aspires to make America: a racist, authoritarian, kleptocracy that bullies its neighbors.
Their base would fucking LOVE if our government could take Putin's stance on journalism
I've noticed a lot of loathing for the press on both the left and the right and I'm starting to think this has got to be Russian influence. Putin hates the press, even going as far as having journalists critical of him killed. Left wingers should think twice before spouting off the sort of nonsense I'm always hearing, about the US press being garbage and secretly wanting Trump even if they endorsed Clinton. Remember, we wouldn't know any of this stuff without the press.
Eeeennnggghhh...
I think we can call shenanigans on CNN thinking Trump's podium being more important than Clinton's speech while still giving them credit when they do things right, like with their current coverage of the dossier.
Please do criticize CNN if you want. But don't damn all the media by one big outlet. The media have largely been very good at alerting the public to Trump being crazy and incompetent; that's how we know
Be very aware the generalized hate of the media seem to have a certain... sameness... on the far left and the far right. And be conscious of the recent discoveries that Putin attempted to influence the far left as well as the far right. Be aware that in trying not to be taken as a sucker, you may be taken as a different sort of sucker.
But the media hasn't been good at that. They never treated Trump or Clinton very seriously during the election. Clinton was nothing but scandals and Trump was just a joke according to them.
The only sameness here is in your own head. There's a difference between people thinking most of the media is bad at their jobs and Trump and his supporters throwing around lügenpresse without any irony.
THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS is what is starting to make me go all "Reds under the beds" because it doesn't line up with the real world, but is surely what Putin wants Americans to think. He wants people to doubt and hate the independent media and lap up all those dubious Facebook forwards we see. I have blocked all of them, left or right, from my feed, and am starting to think this is the reason why I don't see the "ALL MEDIA IS EVIL AND WRONG" stuff that the left is spouting right now. I'm judging the media on... what I read in the media, not what some overheated blogger says about the media in a Facebook forward.
And I have to say, the media is pretty good, despite a tough job. They've kept me well informed. I've read many well-written articles on Trump and Clinton.
As for the media treating Trump as a joke. HELLO? He was, and is, a joke. The media informed us correctly. I cannot comprehend exactly what possessed the American public to vote for a joke that they knew was a joke. But how could the media do anything else than present Trump as an absurd clown? HE IS an absurd clown. That is God's honest truth.
No, the media is not very good. They have been doing a terrible job. There were more negative stories about Clinton then Trump. Think about that. That alone instantly proves that the media done fucked up bad.
The thing you are talking about is a load of crap because you are basically forwarding the position that we can't say the media is shit at doing their job. This is a terrible position to take.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Pretty much after the debates the media got tired of punching Donald Trump for a while. So they jumped on the opportunity to get in a little Hilary news
The media never stopped shitting on Hillary. Never ever.
It started back when she was First Lady, and didn't really stop.
Russia is everything the GOP aspires to make America: a racist, authoritarian, kleptocracy that bullies its neighbors.
Their base would fucking LOVE if our government could take Putin's stance on journalism
I've noticed a lot of loathing for the press on both the left and the right and I'm starting to think this has got to be Russian influence. Putin hates the press, even going as far as having journalists critical of him killed. Left wingers should think twice before spouting off the sort of nonsense I'm always hearing, about the US press being garbage and secretly wanting Trump even if they endorsed Clinton. Remember, we wouldn't know any of this stuff without the press.
Eeeennnggghhh...
I think we can call shenanigans on CNN thinking Trump's podium being more important than Clinton's speech while still giving them credit when they do things right, like with their current coverage of the dossier.
Please do criticize CNN if you want. But don't damn all the media by one big outlet. The media have largely been very good at alerting the public to Trump being crazy and incompetent; that's how we know
Be very aware the generalized hate of the media seem to have a certain... sameness... on the far left and the far right. And be conscious of the recent discoveries that Putin attempted to influence the far left as well as the far right. Be aware that in trying not to be taken as a sucker, you may be taken as a different sort of sucker.
But the media hasn't been good at that. They never treated Trump or Clinton very seriously during the election. Clinton was nothing but scandals and Trump was just a joke according to them.
The only sameness here is in your own head. There's a difference between people thinking most of the media is bad at their jobs and Trump and his supporters throwing around lügenpresse without any irony.
THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS is what is starting to make me go all "Reds under the beds" because it doesn't line up with the real world, but is surely what Putin wants Americans to think. He wants people to doubt and hate the independent media and lap up all those dubious Facebook forwards we see. I have blocked all of them, left or right, from my feed, and am starting to think this is the reason why I don't see the "ALL MEDIA IS EVIL AND WRONG" stuff that the left is spouting right now. I'm judging the media on... what I read in the media, not what some overheated blogger says about the media in a Facebook forward.
And I have to say, the media is pretty good, despite a tough job. They've kept me well informed. I've read many well-written articles on Trump and Clinton.
As for the media treating Trump as a joke. HELLO? He was, and is, a joke. The media informed us correctly. I cannot comprehend exactly what possessed the American public to vote for a joke that they knew was a joke. But how could the media do anything else than present Trump as an absurd clown? HE IS an absurd clown. That is God's honest truth.
No, the media is not very good. They have been doing a terrible job. There were more negative stories about Clinton then Trump. Think about that. That alone instantly proves that the media done fucked up bad.
The thing you are talking about is a load of crap because you are basically forwarding the position that we can't say the media is shit at doing their job. This is a terrible position to take.
The media got what they needed: ratings. They needed a horse race, and even after seeing the info we are just now getting, they worked tirelessly to maintain that horse race.
When I'm being charitable...or perhaps naive...I like to think it's because they thought Clinton was always going to pull ahead at the last moment. Or, less charitably, that they were truly neutral and honestly didn't care about the outcome.
Now? For some reason, I'm entertaining the idea that they wanted a Trump win. Because he's more likely to create more ratings. What would they be covering during a Clinton transition right now? Obama and Clinton meeting up daily to ensure a smooth handoff?
Instead we get Russian espionage and the potential of our president being an active traitor. So many eyeballs, so many clicks. Before he even takes office.
Russia is everything the GOP aspires to make America: a racist, authoritarian, kleptocracy that bullies its neighbors.
Their base would fucking LOVE if our government could take Putin's stance on journalism
I've noticed a lot of loathing for the press on both the left and the right and I'm starting to think this has got to be Russian influence. Putin hates the press, even going as far as having journalists critical of him killed. Left wingers should think twice before spouting off the sort of nonsense I'm always hearing, about the US press being garbage and secretly wanting Trump even if they endorsed Clinton. Remember, we wouldn't know any of this stuff without the press.
Eeeennnggghhh...
I think we can call shenanigans on CNN thinking Trump's podium being more important than Clinton's speech while still giving them credit when they do things right, like with their current coverage of the dossier.
Please do criticize CNN if you want. But don't damn all the media by one big outlet. The media have largely been very good at alerting the public to Trump being crazy and incompetent; that's how we know
Be very aware the generalized hate of the media seem to have a certain... sameness... on the far left and the far right. And be conscious of the recent discoveries that Putin attempted to influence the far left as well as the far right. Be aware that in trying not to be taken as a sucker, you may be taken as a different sort of sucker.
But the media hasn't been good at that. They never treated Trump or Clinton very seriously during the election. Clinton was nothing but scandals and Trump was just a joke according to them.
The only sameness here is in your own head. There's a difference between people thinking most of the media is bad at their jobs and Trump and his supporters throwing around lügenpresse without any irony.
THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS is what is starting to make me go all "Reds under the beds" because it doesn't line up with the real world, but is surely what Putin wants Americans to think. He wants people to doubt and hate the independent media and lap up all those dubious Facebook forwards we see. I have blocked all of them, left or right, from my feed, and am starting to think this is the reason why I don't see the "ALL MEDIA IS EVIL AND WRONG" stuff that the left is spouting right now. I'm judging the media on... what I read in the media, not what some overheated blogger says about the media in a Facebook forward.
And I have to say, the media is pretty good, despite a tough job. They've kept me well informed. I've read many well-written articles on Trump and Clinton.
As for the media treating Trump as a joke. HELLO? He was, and is, a joke. The media informed us correctly. I cannot comprehend exactly what possessed the American public to vote for a joke that they knew was a joke. But how could the media do anything else than present Trump as an absurd clown? HE IS an absurd clown. That is God's honest truth.
No, the media is not very good. They have been doing a terrible job. There were more negative stories about Clinton then Trump. Think about that. That alone instantly proves that the media done fucked up bad.
The thing you are talking about is a load of crap because you are basically forwarding the position that we can't say the media is shit at doing their job. This is a terrible position to take.
The media got what they needed: ratings. They needed a horse race, and even after seeing the info we are just now getting, they worked tirelessly to maintain that horse race.
When I'm being charitable...or perhaps naive...I like to think it's because they thought Clinton was always going to pull ahead at the last moment. Or, less charitably, that they were truly neutral and honestly didn't care about the outcome.
Now? For some reason, I'm entertaining the idea that they wanted a Trump win. Because he's more likely to create more ratings. What would they be covering during a Clinton transition right now? Obama and Clinton meeting up daily to ensure a smooth handoff?
Instead we get Russian espionage and the potential of our president being an active traitor. So many eyeballs, so many clicks. Before he even takes office.
Crikey. The "media" aren't engaged in a conspiracy to get Trump to be president. They have to live in this country too. Commercial pressures mean they write about the most interesting thing, and Trump managed to be relentlessly interesting.
Don't get all paranoid and conspiratorial. Who are "the media"? Mostly just people who were good at writing in school and decided to do a degree in journalism. Don't get all "Putin" and start scapegoating them. We wouldn't know any of this shit if they hadn't told us.
+2
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
I know the answer is "no" but I'm going to ask anyway.
Is there any possible way for a do-over election? What would it take for that to occur?
I know the answer is "no" but I'm going to ask anyway.
Is there any possible way for a do-over election? What would it take for that to occur?
A constitutional amendment. So... yeah. Not going to happen. The closest real option is impeaching Trump but you'd still have Pence unless he's also implicated in something bad enough.
I think if these allegations turn out to be true, the most likely outcome is Trump becomes President and then is removed via the 25th amendment or an impeachment. I think Pence becomes President and the Republicans continue to pass regressive legislation.
I don't think there's any chance of a do-over election. I also think Obama is too afraid of what will happen if he tries to forcibly stop Trump from assuming the office, so it will proceed as normal. And then Obama will immediately begin lobbying in Congress for an impeachment process.
If the allegations are not true or are not easily verifiable, well....welcome to the fucking show, strap in, I hope we survive the next four years.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
I remember. And I also remember the people screaming for Nat Silver's head for daring to predict that Clinton had only a 60-something % chance to win, rather than 99+ % like all the other echo-chamber predictors had.
People have hated HRC for some 20-odd years now; blaming "the media" for her 'surprise' loss is just the left's way of projecting blame and failing to seriously examine why they completely lost touch with middle America.
+7
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
That's.... what I thought.
I'm going to try and not get my hopes up for impeachment, but if anyone can beat the odds it's Trump.
Posts
Should this maybe be in the OP?
THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS is what is starting to make me go all "Reds under the beds" because it doesn't line up with the real world, but is surely what Putin wants Americans to think. He wants people to doubt and hate the independent media and lap up all those dubious Facebook forwards we see. I have blocked all of them, left or right, from my feed, and am starting to think this is the reason why I don't see the "ALL MEDIA IS EVIL AND WRONG" stuff that the left is spouting right now. I'm judging the media on... what I read in the media, not what some overheated blogger says about the media in a Facebook forward.
And I have to say, the media is pretty good, despite a tough job. They've kept me well informed. I've read many well-written articles on Trump and Clinton.
As for the media treating Trump as a joke. HELLO? He was, and is, a joke. The media informed us correctly. I cannot comprehend exactly what possessed the American public to vote for a joke that they knew was a joke. But how could the media do anything else than present Trump as an absurd clown? HE IS an absurd clown. That is God's honest truth.
They never treated him as someone who might be President until like 10 PM on election night.
More to the point, here's the nation's foremost newspaper, which is supposedly liberal:
The story was "FBI Finds Same E-Mails Again." This was less than two weeks before the election.
If the mainstream, corporate media didn't suck, Russia's fantastically ridiculous ploy of "selectively release Clinton e-mails, hyping them as revealing her as corrupt" would never have worked.
If you have ever read the NYT you'd see that it is actually pretty "conservative" in the European sense. It's not Mother Jones by any means. I get the strong feeling that they'd love to be completely unaligned but Republicans are so goddamn crazy that they end up coming down on the Democrat side because it's the only one that isn't certifiable. The NYT is the paper that Wall Street reads, remember (oh and also the WSJ) - they are definitely aimed at people with money. It's pretty hilarious how in their lifestyle sections they are presenting people buying $1 million apartments as "budget conscious" and "struggling."
that NYT font page is based solely on the comey letter which barely said ANYTHING. The NYT took up their whole front page with nothing but wild speculation.
Said better than I could. Yes that's how it happened. Yes it was a headline, deservedly. But literally every inch above the fold was dedicated to something that "might" turn out to be a story (and didn't). Days before the election.
Nothing about that story at the time suggested it should occupy 100% of the above-the-fold space.
Well except "FBI, breaking all precedent, tries to swing election 11 days out." That's a pretty big story.
EDIT: To bring this more on topic and less from the media thread (seriously, read that thread and its predecessors, the media is... not good at their jobs and this is not a new complaint): the Russian hacks would not work if the media wasn't consistently willing to see the absolute worst in Clinton and comically over inflate the importance of negative stories about her.
She got more negative coverage than fucking Trump! The dominant story of this campaign was her e-mail management. How does that make any sense?
I remember them having a fuck of a lot of it when it broke, but perhaps the print edition was different. Amusingly, they left out the dirty sex stuff. Oh that old grey lady!
When the e-mails contained nothing, continued to contain nothing, officially reported by the government to contain nothing, and months later still contained nothing, it was time to stop reporting on them. But the media did not. Because for some idiot reason they need for there to be "balance" between a man who spewed unending bigotry and a woman who had a private e-mail server.
Trump was aided by the media hands down. I don't think maliciously, obvious news sources aside, but most of them certainly out of incompetence. And he's only kinda sorta getting the coverage he deserves now when there's no one competing with him.
They aren't saying a damn thing different about him now than when he was running. Odd that you are *hearing* it different. They always portrayed him as insane and dangerous. Perhaps it was *you* who were all "Eh, no-one is going to be stupid enough to vote for this clown." Because I remember a lot of that here right before the election. "The media" is *also* what we say here on chat forums and sites, not just big important newspapers. I remember being blasted (on another similar site to this) due to merely suggesting that maybe Nate Silver's moderate pessimism about Clinton's chances wasn't just him trolling for clicks. But everyone has forgotten that now.
As for incompetence, I remember that time and the NYT were reporting on what people were talking about. That's what the news does. If they bury stuff because they think the public ought not to talk about it, you don't like that, do you?
Reporting on what people were talking about isn't news, it's gossip.
As I noted, it was news. Probably even above-the-fold news. But not 100% of above-the-fold news. Yeah, at that point they were a tabloid.
Yeah I feel like I had a pretty strong "he's on the ballot in all fifty states, he can win" attitude. I thought it unlikely, but from the moment of the nomination I felt the dread of it's absolute possibility.
Pretty much after the debates the media got tired of punching Donald Trump for a while. So they jumped on the opportunity to get in a little Hilary news
The media never stopped shitting on Hillary. Never ever.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I haven't forgotten. A big part of why the loss hit me so hard is that all of the data pointed to a Clinton win. I'm an engineer, my whole life is making decisions based on data. I ignored the Trump bumper stickers and billboards and the assclown waving a Trump sign on the streetcorner like one of those Little Caesars guys because the data told me we were safe. I volunteered with the Clinton campaign and was specifically told by their lead staffer "Our data is telling us that we just need to get our base out to vote, we don't need to worry about convincing independents."
And then the data was wrong, and I still don't know what to do about it.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
It's not going away. Thank God.
No, the media is not very good. They have been doing a terrible job. There were more negative stories about Clinton then Trump. Think about that. That alone instantly proves that the media done fucked up bad.
The thing you are talking about is a load of crap because you are basically forwarding the position that we can't say the media is shit at doing their job. This is a terrible position to take.
It started back when she was First Lady, and didn't really stop.
The media got what they needed: ratings. They needed a horse race, and even after seeing the info we are just now getting, they worked tirelessly to maintain that horse race.
When I'm being charitable...or perhaps naive...I like to think it's because they thought Clinton was always going to pull ahead at the last moment. Or, less charitably, that they were truly neutral and honestly didn't care about the outcome.
Now? For some reason, I'm entertaining the idea that they wanted a Trump win. Because he's more likely to create more ratings. What would they be covering during a Clinton transition right now? Obama and Clinton meeting up daily to ensure a smooth handoff?
Instead we get Russian espionage and the potential of our president being an active traitor. So many eyeballs, so many clicks. Before he even takes office.
Crikey. The "media" aren't engaged in a conspiracy to get Trump to be president. They have to live in this country too. Commercial pressures mean they write about the most interesting thing, and Trump managed to be relentlessly interesting.
Don't get all paranoid and conspiratorial. Who are "the media"? Mostly just people who were good at writing in school and decided to do a degree in journalism. Don't get all "Putin" and start scapegoating them. We wouldn't know any of this shit if they hadn't told us.
Is there any possible way for a do-over election? What would it take for that to occur?
A constitutional amendment. So... yeah. Not going to happen. The closest real option is impeaching Trump but you'd still have Pence unless he's also implicated in something bad enough.
constitutional amendment
I don't think there's any chance of a do-over election. I also think Obama is too afraid of what will happen if he tries to forcibly stop Trump from assuming the office, so it will proceed as normal. And then Obama will immediately begin lobbying in Congress for an impeachment process.
If the allegations are not true or are not easily verifiable, well....welcome to the fucking show, strap in, I hope we survive the next four years.
No. Literally none. Once the electoral college vote is certified, it's done. Now the only do-over we get is impeachment.
we need Robbespiere
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Which is fine, honestly. I'd rather not have a lower bar for shaking up the executive branch.
E: Even if I reaaaallly wish we could invoke it right now.
If we could not advocate for a Reign of Terror involving our government that'd be great.
People have hated HRC for some 20-odd years now; blaming "the media" for her 'surprise' loss is just the left's way of projecting blame and failing to seriously examine why they completely lost touch with middle America.
I'm going to try and not get my hopes up for impeachment, but if anyone can beat the odds it's Trump.