Mainstream Media

[Zylon]

@Thrag

I took that as a bit of a laugh at something that is indeed a little facepalm worthy.

I feel like I’ve failed to communicate my point here. 99.9% of Americans do not have the requisite familiarity with century-old Russian sociopolitics to render the above statement facepalm-worthy. So no, it really isn’t. At best it’s a “Hey look how much we remember from our electives!” circle jerk.

[Thrag]

So if everyone doesn’t get a joke nobody should find it funny? Okay.

[Woolen_Horde]

This feels so fitting after the massive video push all of the mainstream media went through

A Defunct Video Hosting Site Is Flooding Normal Websites With Hardcore Porn

Hardcore porn is embedded all over regular-ass websites because a porn company has purchased the domain of a popular, defunct video hosting site.

[jpinard]

@Gordon_Cameron

It sorta makes sense… the ‘drug czar’ was supposed to fight drugs, right? Doesn’t sound great, though. I always thought drug czar sounded weird too.

The drug czar lost.

[ShivaX]

Andrew Fleischman

Andrew Fleischman

[KevinC]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/29/what-would-responsible-coverage-look-like/

Jennifer Rubin on how the media should cover Republicans responsibly.

Media coverage that draws a false equivalence between one party operating in defense of democracy and another seeking to tear it down not only plays along with Republican deceptions; it also fails the most fundamental goal of journalism: to inform the public.

Reporters regularly fall for this trap. That includes any report that insists on taking Republican “outrage” seriously; that refuses to call Republicans out for their excuses for bad behavior; that attempts to downplay Republicans’ rambling, incoherent and unhinged rhetoric; and that regurgitates Republicans’ false statements. Such instances serve as evidence that many in the mainstream media outlets have learned little over the last five years.

What would accurate, morally defensible coverage look like?

First, instead of the “Republicans say” formulation, the most precise framing is more often than not “Republicans lied” or “Republicans offered a non sequitur.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) outbursts rarely evidence real “outrage,” they feign anger. Republicans do not offer “explanations” for their opposition to the Jan. 6 committee; they manufacture falsehoods to justify opposition.

[scottagibson]

How your WaPo subscription money is being spent. Sigh.

Jamison Foser

Jamison Foser

[Gordon_Cameron]

Well, he did start an anti-smoking campaign.

[scottagibson]

“Today on Meet the Press, did Trump not make the trains run on time? Don’t we have to give him credit for that? Our guests, Jim Jordan and Ron Johnson, when we return in a moment.”

[Timex]

What is the downside to acknowledging that someone you don’t like did things that weren’t terrible? It’s merely filling out your perspective with more information.

Much of the hyper partisanship of today’s political climate stems from partisans isolating themselves into cells where they are never exposed to any information that supports anything other than a hyper partisan, incomplete, worldview.

[rrmorton]

I don’t necessarily disagree but I think the frustration stems from the fact that you would never, EVER see Fox News run a similar story from the other angle.

For me, this always go back to acknowledging the very real difference in the demographic of viewers/readers/voters. In spite of the imbalance, I’m glad I’m on the side that demonstrates there’s an audience for empathy and intellectual curiosity.

[Gordon_Cameron]

Yeah, the context is probably what’s rankling, and the way it demonstrates the media’s endless attempts to bend over backwards to be “even handed” no matter what larger truths may fall by the wayside.

Also, that Trump may on occasion have executed good policy can obscure the fact that he is an authoritarian whose political career right now constitutes a clear and present danger to the Republic, so it’s a matter of what one emphasizes.

We all know authoritarians can sometimes execute good policy. Caesar Augustus executed all kinds of good policy. So did Charlemagne, I’ll wager.

[scottagibson]

@rrmorton

I don’t necessarily disagree but I think the frustration stems from the fact that you would never, EVER see Fox News run a similar story from the other angle.

That, plus I don’t think you can reasonably describe the problem with Trump as we don’t like him.

[Zylon]

@Timex

What is the downside to acknowledging that someone you don’t like did things that weren’t terrible? It’s merely filling out your perspective with more information.

Careful, your conservative atavism is kicking in again.

The purpose of articles like this is to fuel talking points for Trumpers so they can “whatabout” criticism of his misdeeds in office. You know, the same people who bleat that both Democrats and Republicans are corrupt, with zero regard for the degree of corruption. In their heads, articles like this will translate into his good deeds more than making up for any bad deeds they can’t manage to handwave away. The fact that any good deeds may only account for 1% of his actions in office will be irrelevant.

[vinraith]

@Timex

What is the downside to acknowledging that someone you don’t like did things that weren’t terrible? It’s merely filling out your perspective with more information.

Jamison Foser

[Timex]

Yeah, the fact that a hyper partisan like Jamison Foster thinks no one needs to hear something, doesn’t make that so.

I don’t think anyone here is going to be able to suggest that I’m a fan of trump… But it doesn’t hurt me to acknowledge the reality that maybe he did some things that weren’t terrible. Because that’s simply accepting reality.

[Enidigm]

The problem is that it’s hard to imagine that Trump actually got something right through insight rather than luck. What Elagabulus Got Right could certainly be a topic but not an especially interesting one.

It might be possible that in placating certain conservative elements in his party a policy here or there was “correct” but that’s hardly much of an appraisal of his own.

[easytarget]

The extent to which I’m willing to credit Trump for anything ends at: actively worked to destroy our democracy. Something he’s still very much working to accomplish with the help of most of the republican party.

Oh, correction, I’d also give him credit for being the worst president in American history.

[Telefrog]

I give him credit for two things:

1. He did pardon a few people that deserved a pardon. Unfortunately, he also pardoned a whole lot of cronies and chuds that actively undermined America, so I guess that’s a wash.

2. His corrupt and idiotic presidency revealed a whole gaggle of weaknesses in our democracy, including a lot of stuff that people thought were cut and dried laws, but turned out to be just gentlemen’s agreements or toothless tradition. Unfortunately, this also benefitted all the cronies and chuds (see above) as they too learned that you can get away with a lot if you just dare a vote-locked Congress to do anything about it.

[Gordon_Cameron]

He signed prison reform into law and allocated funds to vaccine research.

Both of these are things any competent president would have done, and they hardly balance out the whole ‘enemy of American democracy’ business, but sure, throw 'em in the history books.