With the world on fire, a cowardly, timid news media is a threat to U.S. democracy
With the world on fire, a cowardly, timid news media is a threat to U.S. democracy
News organizations are using cowardly words to describe killing abroad, fascism at home — downplaying the danger to democracy.
News organizations are using cowardly words to describe killing abroad, fascism at home — downplaying the danger to democracy.
There was a shocking and incredibly important story on the front page of the New York Times last week. As reported by an A-team of journalists including two Pulitzer Prize winners, the Times warned its readers that Donald Trump — if returned to the White House in 2025 — is grooming a new team of extremist government lawyers who would be more loyal to their Dear Leader than to the rule of law, and could help Trump install a brand of American fascism.
You say you didn’t hear anything about this? That’s not surprising. The editors at the Times made sure to present this major report in the blandest, most inoffensive way possible — staying true to the mantra in the nation’s most influential newsroom that the 2024 election shouldn’t be covered any differently, even when U.S. democracy is on the line.
7 years after 2016, and Trump coming down that fake golden escalator: ya think?
During 2016 election The New York Times published thousands of stories about Clinton email/Benghazi, not one on Trumps lifelong ties to NY/Russian mob. As if The New York Times wasn't in a particularly knowledgeable position to report on 70 years of NYC construction & mob history
He came down the escalator in 2015 and it's been 8 years since then, 7 since 2016
Read this about what they're planning to do in the first 180 days: https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025
Wiki link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
Someone made a very good post recapping, but I can't find it. Even as a non American, this scares the shit out of me. Democrats need to pull their heads out of their asses now or be ready for a real life Gilead.
This is why many of us remain pro 2a. Citizens in blue states are rushing to limit their second amendment rights while those in red states are busy expanding their own. I remain optimistic and hopeful it will never come to it, but there may come a time we'll wish we had access to normal capacity magazines and non-nerfed rifles. Jon Stewart isn't going to come to my rescue when some fascist militia member has me on my knees in front of a ditch. We need to accept that the fascists will never disarm, regardless of legislation, that cat is out of the bag. We need to believe them when they tell us what kind of America they want and what they're willing to do to get there because although they may seem like a joke, they are fucking dead serious.
The gun most likely to harm you is your own. Either through an accident, or a family member or friend using it (possibly carelessly). You are not going to fight off any mobs with the one gun you can fit in your sweaty hands.
There will be no fascist takeover, mainly because the average American will never allow it. Our economy is so interconnected that it can be disrupted by a minor issue (remember the "supply chain" thing?).
If there was some "fascist mobs" taking over some government buildings or voting booths or whatever, people would definitely slow down at work. Many wouldn't even show up. A slowdown of the economy is the last thing rich people want. Guess who politicians listen to?
"Democrats need to pull their heads out of their asses now or be ready for a real life Gilead."
Sadly I can only count on 2 things from the Democrats: being marginally better than moderate Republicans, and falling flat on their faces when trying to do literally anything.
It sucks that our only defence against the incoming cannon fire is a wet napkin...
Don't they use words like SLAMS and BLASTS all the time?
Yeah, to talk about harsh words
"Claps at."
Ugh.
News has been neutered.
They're too concerned with stepping on people's toes to show people what matters.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen articles reporting on footage without showing the actual footage.
Most annoying thing: talking heads talking about a video instead of actually showing it.
They waste so much money on these roles that do nothing to help the audience.
Most of them are owned by the very same companies they would speak out against. It's a propaganda machine at best Ryight now.
The 3 independent Pillars of Democracy are the Press Pillar, the Judicial Pillar and the Political Pillar.
They're supposed to watch over each other because there is a pragmatic expectation even in Democracy that some amongst those holding power will be crooked or become crooker (after all "power corrupts"), hence the 3 independent pillars to solve the whole "who watches the watchers" problem.
(If you look at even the supposedly most well intentioned implementations of ideologies other than Democracy, you see all of them failing because power becomes concentrated in a single nexus, then naturally corrupted and then the crooks just entrench themselves and make sure they're immune to the Law and will never lose Power)
If you have lots of money and want to subvert the mechanics of how citizens have some control over the highest powers of the land in a Democracy, the easiest way by far is to buy the Press. Once the Press is bought, the politicians can be bought all the while electors are blissfully unware of it because the Press won't report it. If the Judicial Pillar is not independent of the Political Pillar (for example, because judges are positions of political nomination and/or politicians control the purse strings of the Judiciary Pillar), then you end up with a system were Democracy is but theatre.
The Power Of Citizens having been neutred through these mechanics, the highest power of the land becomes the Power Of Money.
Welcome the the US of A!
(Far from the only one, I might add, but probably the most further ahead in terms of the Power Of Citizens having been nullified)
I think it's more that their incentives are perverse.
When you are ad supported it means you rely on clicks, views, and viewers. So you are incentivized to maximize views which in some cases means making people very angry and scared, sometimes means not showing them stuff they don't want to see or hear, and sometimes means fabricating bullshit (fox News) because they real story wouldn't get you as many clicks.
Us, as citizens and consumers of news, have abdicated our responsibility to be skeptical though. We've leaned on trustworthy news media over the years to be that filter, skeptic that's impartial and honest. We trusted them to speak truth to power, dig into the nuance and explain it to us.
They aren't doing that anymore and we haven't shifted our approach to the news. A lot of people still just trust the news(the news they like) as if it's still honest and impartial.
Another thing that shifted was the "don't believe everything you read on the Internet" to people believing anything theyve read on the Internet.
I like when they talk about what people tweet, rather than doing any actual investigative journalism. "Well Cumnugget78 said XYZ, so we'll discuss like that's true."
Most annoying thing: talking heads talking about a video instead of actually showing it.
they were the prototypical reaction video youtubers
The reaction video youtubers at least show you the damn video.
So they are doing a BETTER job than traditional media.
We have to stop thinking about news media as being the fourth estate and realize that it is a business. Their business is reliant on the status quo, in not rocking the boat. With advertisers like weapon manufacturers: Raytheon, Northrop Grumman: oil companies Exxon, etc and big pharma. They have a clear profit motive to not do journalism and to run whitewashing propaganda campaigns as their business model.
Some news orgs lie outright and others through omission. Either way they have a clear bias and an interest in guiding a narrative.
Its not about being cowardly or timid. Its about profit. The serve the same monied interests that buy our politician's.
In russian infosphere it's a meme already, has been for a long time. Kremlinslurping media don't even downplay the brutality of things, they invent newspeak to avoid upsetting words.
If some psycho got gas flowing in a communal house and then ignited it to blow the whole building, it's not a blow, it's a clap. A clap, a flap, or whatever.
I'm sure it's accurate and all, but it will be a cold day in hell when I click on an Inquirer link.
Edit: Nevermind. I mistook The Inquirer for the much less reputable The National Enquirer.
What's wrong with Inquirer? Genuinely curious
You know what? I was wrong. I mistook "The Inquirer" A Philadelphia based newspaper with "The National Enquirer" a tabloid rag that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. My bad.
Our fragile republic is in danger
they've all become entirely obsequious to wealth
Anyone else ever think of pulling the plug on election day? It's just too much, man. I suffered through one term of Trump; I can't do it again.
You'll make it through and our country will either fall apart or come out stronger.
Biden signed off more land than trump in terms of fossil fuel production.
Ceasef- I mean humanitarian pause