I don’t understand - was Kellyanne Conway not interested in the job?
See! This is how you compromise. If Donald Trump and the right wing label you as Fake News, you gotta meet them in the middle and put one of their cronies in charge of your coverage.
Charlies Pierce sums it up pretty well.
When you are sane:
“In a span of three days in January of this year commencing on January 19, the Post engaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann, an innocent secondary school child,”
The Sandmanns’ suit asserts that the newspaper “bullied” Sandmann in its reporting “because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red ‘Make America Great Again’ souvenir cap.”
It calls Phillips “a phony war hero [who] was too intimidated by the unruly Hebrew Israelites to approach them, the true troublemakers, and instead chose to focus on a group of innocent children.”
So in their suit against the WaPo, they are attacking a war hero?
The kid’s family is just trying to capitalize on their newfound fame in the far right wing circles. He’s gonna be the next big gummed freak running something like TurningPointUSA.
250M, because that is what Jeff Bezos paid for the paper.
Totally not insane.
edit: link wouldn’t render
I mean, yeah? Given how CNN just hired a far right ideologue I find this plausible.
It’s never made sense how much Trump criticizes CNN when they’re constantly giving the absolute bottom of the barrel scum the airtime to advance his shit agenda.
For the sale of fairness, this isn’t remotely the first time that someone who worked in politics then went on to television journalism.
Oh sure, but to have your election coverage controlled by a political hack seems to be quite the step. Having them as a guest, a la Carville? Different.
To further the sake of fairness, fuck CNN with a fire poker.
Like Craig said, a voice among many is one thing but putting a political operative in charge of your election coverage? Holy shit, what a terrible idea.
But it’s gone far beyond simply having them as guests.
Russert was a political operative for Democrats, and now he’s NBC’s Washington bureau chief and host of meet the press. Stephanopoulos was a super high profile aide to Clinton before going to ABC.
For politics, the only reporter worth watching on CNN is Jake Tapper. Unless you want to listen to Blitzer blather on about “the BREAKING NEWS” or watch any of their other mediocrities moderate foodfights starring Lewandoski and the like.
It wasn’t worth watching before this.
Spoiler: The media will ignore the memo.
The Democrats running for president are beginning a meaty, substantive debate on how to address the most pressing problems the country faces, including climate change and reforming the health-care system.
trump, on the other hand, would like to use his bully pulpit to throw a cloak of deception and distraction over that debate, to paint Democrats in the worst possible light and, in the process, make sure voters are as ill-informed as possible.
And some in the news media seem eager to abet Trump in his effort.
In the best of circumstances, presidential campaigns can offer an extended opportunity to explore issues and chart a path for the country, which is what Democrats are doing as they try to win the support of primary voters.
Meanwhile, Trump is giving speeches making the ludicrous claim that anything Democrats propose will inevitably turn the United States into Venezuela.
And the response from the political press is to ask, “Are Democrats at risk of being labeled socialist socialists with all their socialist socialism?”
For instance, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) was recently asked if she supported the elimination of private health insurance, as might occur under a strict single-payer plan; she responded that she would, describing some of the problems of private insurance. Her campaign later walked that back a bit, saying that it’s one possible option. But in an interview yesterday with NBC, here’s how she was asked to address the question: “Do you think eliminating private insurance would be a socialist idea?”
Not “How would that work?,” or “What are the tradeoffs?,” or “How does that compare to the alternatives?,” but whether that idea can be affixed with this controversial label, which of course the interviewer didn’t bother to explore or explain.
The ‘Democratic Socialists’ are in serious danger of letting the right tie them fully and completely to Venezuela, and it might already be too late to counter that. When you let the opposition define you, you’ve dug a really deep hole.
Maybe they could start referring to ‘Nordic Democrats’ or some variation - that would be a lot harder for all those “oh no, brown people!” pundits to scare people with.
Republicans have been screeching socialism for as long as I can remember (going back to the 80s, but it’s been used well before then too.)
It scared baby boomers (and probably Gen Xers too) but millennials probably (hopefully) won’t be phased by it. Moreover, the word itself has lost meaning. Socialism is used for Soviet Russia, N. Korea, Cuba et al but the policies being advocated by liberal Democrats aren’t any different from those found in most of Europe. Is Germany or the Netherlands “socialist”? What about social security or medicare? It’s a form of socialism, sure, but then why if these programs improve the lives of millions of peoples are they so demonized? (Rhetorical question, we know why.) Every Democrat running, including Warren and Sanders are capitalists, not a one of them is advocating for state planning of the economy.
I have no idea why Americans are so scared of it (or so easily brainwashed.) If I were a political strategist I would say, damn straight this is socialism, socialism for the majority of Americans instead of socialism for the moneyed elites we’ve been running for the past three decades (i.e. privatize the profits, socialize the costs.)