Mainstream Media

[Strollen]

I think there’s a couple of problems with Brooks’ article. First, Trump is trying to distort the democratic process as a whole, never mind the primary process. The primaries will work themselves out just fine thank you. Second, the it will accomplish nothing and this isn’t what the country wants to talk about are both probably true, but you still have to address the elephant in the room. For me, at least, you can’t ignore Trump’s actions just because it would be hard to address or because people don’t want to talk about it. That’s why we hire elected officials to take care of that business. Finally, we’re eight minutes into looking at the latest allegations, way too early to speculate on reactions, what’s good and not good for the country, etc. This could just be the tip of whatever the full iceberg might be, so writing about how just the tip is this or that feels premature at best. At worst it feels like a more “acceptable” presentation of the talking points meant to blunt things before any work can actually occur.

I was really surprised that Brook’s published it. You are absolutely correct we are only 3 days into this scandal and its getting bigger. Even Rudy crazy man act? isn’t enough to distract the media. Trump attempted troll of Greta barely got reaction. Short of shooting and eating (shooting won’t be enough) a reporter in the White House, I think Trump won’t be able to distract the media on this.

On the other hand Brooks position isn’t really different than Nancy Pelosi last week.

[Strollen]

I always enjoyed reading Sullivan and Brooks and Frum and George Will. I disagreed with them a lot, but I enjoyed reading their reasoning, and sometimes I agreed with them on things too. But with one exception, their arguments weren’t based on fake science or conspiracy theories or lies. Just faulty reasoning (in my opinion). The one exception being trickle down economics. They all seem convinced that this will magically work next time you do it.

Ya that’s a fair criticism. I defended trickle down for a long time, there is a decent amount of economic theory to support it . Plus it makes intuitive sense (as does giving money directly to poor people), but in the real world it has failed.

[HumanTon]

I didn’t bring up the whole “NYT guesses who the whistleblower is” story in this thread because, while it seemed like it was the sort of thing Trump was eager to know and exploit, the NYT could at least make a case the whistleblower’s ID was newsworthy.

But today once again they’re pushing a story that Trump & co. are seizing on to weaponize, and this time … it’s a whole lot of nothing. Making you wonder about the NYT’s agenda in publishing it at all.

The New York Times (nytimes)

Thing is, this isn’t suspicious or illegal or unethical or anything. Whistleblowers are explicitly allowed to do this.

Bradley P. Moss (BradMossEsq)

So why publish a story on what is basically an unimportant matter of timing? Well, guess what the GOP did as soon as the Times published this:

Kevin McCarthy (GOPLeader)

Ronna McDaniel (GOPChairwoman)

It’s almost as if the NYT is elevating non-news to news so the GOP can then use the NYT’s credibility to turn the non-news into disinformation.

[KevinC]

Fuck the NYTimes in every conceivable manner.

[RichVR]

Sideways pineapple?

[KevinC]

Make it so!

[BennyProfane]

Sideways blowfish

[CraigM]

A pineapple stuffed in a blowfish?

The turducken of pain.

[anonymgeist]

Maybe a nice Carolina Reaper glaze to top it off.

[RichVR]

Now you’re talking.

[CraigM]

Guys, I just realized. We are thinking too small. Why settle for pineapple when jackfruit is right there

[TranquilityBase]

Go durian or go home.

[KevinC]

[Calelari]

Everything is a dildo buttplug if you’re brave enough?

[RothdaTheTruculent]

You’re going to want to pick a Jumpship with a flared base.

[HumanTon]

Everyone’s talking about impeachment now, and the surprising thing - to the news media at least - has been how unexpectedly popular it is. Even some Republicans are changing their mind on it.

So the Boston Globe went out into the big wide world to see what they could see and then wrote this:

In a deep red Tennessee district, impeachment elicits sighs, not anger

Gosh, another article that says that if you go out looking for Trump supporters, you can find them. Sure haven’t read that one before, every other day since November 2016.

I bet the editor who OK’d this spends his nights wide awake wondering why the news business is dying, too.

[HumanTon]

Not to be outdone, a certain NYT pundit has gone the Boston Globe one better by just making up his Trump supporters:

Why Trump Voters Stick With Him
An imagined conversation with Flyover Man.
By DAVID BROOKS

This is apparently a real thing. I haven’t seen it myself, mind. I fear that if I look directly at it, I might go mad.

[Rock8man]

Sounds like a satirical article. It should be safe.

Edit: Ok, I read it, and it’s terrible. Flyover man is super articulate and nuanced, and Urban Guy is simple and stubborn. I live in red country and I’ve never heard any conservative around me make arguments even in the same ballpark.

[Zylon]

It doesn’t matter that Flyover Man doesn’t exist, because he could exist.

[Matt_W]

This is apparently a real thing.

This is precisely what Brooks has been doing for years. He is the biggest fraud in all of punditry. Unlike, for instance, Nobel Prize winning professor of economics Paul Krugman, Brooks has literally no expertise in any damn thing whatsoever, so he just makes shit up. Constantly. And white liberals, for many years, would nod along: “So there are reasonable conservatives out there.” God, he’s the worst.