Let's Talk About Media

acesfull86 said:
https://reason.com/2024/10/17/how-are-reason-staffers-voting-in-2024/

^ I wish every media outlet did this. Why don’t they?
Click to expand...

I agree in theory but I dont know that its feasible for all media. Depending on who they work for they could face retaliation and discrimination because of their vote. And thats not specific to one side. I guess theres nothing to stop them from lying though. Reason makes sense because they are largely Libertarian which is about as close to being bipartisan as it gets.
 
no mention of the interview y'all been clamoring for.

Well, Bret Baier sat there interrupted, asked misleading

gotcha questions and pretty much shilled for Trump.

Must have not been what our MAGA friends wanted

or thought they would get
 
I thought Baier did a great job pressing Harris where no one else would and her performance was shambolic. She’s clearly not prepared for this job.

He had to interrupt her because there was a lot of ground to cover in the 27 minutes and she has a habit of not answering the questions asked.

Interviews with presidential candidates should be contentious…these people are interviewing with the American people for maybe the most important job in the world.

Baier was similarly tough with Trump in the past, and similarly had to interrupt him 28 times - https://www.axios.com/2023/06/21/trump-bret-baier-fox-news-interview

Weirdly I don’t remember the mainstream media members hammering him for his unfairness saying the same things after the Trump interview. I won(D)er why…
 
Last edited by a moderator:
acesfull86 said:
I thought Baier did a great job pressing Harris where no one else would and her performance was shambolic. She’s clearly not prepared for this job.

He had to interrupt her because there was a lot of ground to cover in the 27 minutes and she has a habit of not answering the questions asked.

Interviews with presidential candidates should be contentious…these people are interviewing with the American people for maybe the most important job in the world.

Baier was similarly tough with Trump in the past, and similarly had to interrupt him 28 times - https://www.axios.com/2023/06/21/trump-bret-baier-fox-news-interview

Weirdly I don’t remember the mainstream media members hammering him for his unfairness saying the same things after the Trump interview. I won(D)er why…
Click to expand...

Look who you are talking to…. There’s only one way to see things.

Baier said the interview was supposed to be 25 minutes, at the 15 minute mark they were telling her to wrap it up and a hard wrap at 20 despite being late

She didn’t communicate well because at this point she can’t. Had plenty of opportunities
 
Who cares about the interview?

Harris is almost irrelevant and in a few weeks nobody will even know she existed.
 
sturg33 said:
Should I be happy that the system is learning its ways and changing, or concerned that the system we have called the enemy for years is now planning to work with the Don?
Click to expand...

Oh dear - it hasn’t gotten better yet.

Well, here’s hoping it will mend in time.
 
sturg33 said:
Should I be happy that the system is learning its ways and changing, or concerned that the system we have called the enemy for years is now planning to work with the Don?
Click to expand...

Oh dear - it hasn’t gotten better yet.

Well, here’s hoping it will mend in time.
 
[tw]1854553640612061288[/tw]

This is like when a sports season doesn’t go as planned and a few days after it’s over the beat writers empty their notebooks with all the crazy **** that went down. I reallllly hope someone writes a book about what went on inside (D) these past few months. There’s no reason to run cover for anyone anymore.
 
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-landslide-against-the-media-journalism-news-politics-election-7146410b?mod=opinion_lead_pos10



So long as the left is pointing fingers, let it direct a big, fat digit at the outfit that played the biggest role in losing it this election: the U.S. media.

That isn’t the conventional wisdom, which holds that the press’s naked shilling for Democratic candidates amounts to an in-kind campaign contribution. And no doubt the media’s ceaseless attacks on Donald Trump and Republicans did help round up some undecided voters. Yet the boosterism for Kamala Harris & Co. came at a far bigger cost: A narrative full of fantasy enabled Democrats to live in a world disconnected from the mood and worries of the country.

Among the most damaging of these fantasies was the four-year press assurance that Joe Biden was sharp as a tack. Even video evidence in June of a confused president wandering aimlessly at the Group of Seven was met with claims that the footage was “edited,” “lacking context,” “misleading.” Only when the Trump-Biden debate made Mr. Biden’s decline undeniable did the media drop the charade. Then it immediately turned to recast Ms. Harris—a presidential primary loser turned unpopular vice president—as a political genius and the obvious savior of the Democratic Party. How’d that work out?

In a world with a competent press, Mr. Biden’s failing constitution would have been front-page news in time for Democrats to confront the unpleasant (yet manageable) reality of needed change. A primary would have produced a tested nominee, likely one less encumbered by the Biden record. As Harris adviser (and Obama veteran) David Plouffe complains that Team Biden created a “hole” too “deep” for his sidekick to dig out of, don’t forget the industry whose job it is to call out political fiction, but instead wrote the “Joe Is Fine” novel.

Of course Democrats are shocked that they lost. In a world with a functioning press, the politician who tries to make lemonade out of inflation, crime or border chaos, is slapped as out of touch. In Biden-Harris world, the press printed their spin as gospel. Four years of headlines insisted Americans live in one of the “strongest economies” ever. Crime rates were falling. Red-state governors engaged in “stunts” to magnify the migrant problem. The biggest issues facing our country were climate, systemic racism, abortion and transgender rights.

The fantasies were maintained right up to the election. Even as Republicans pointed to surging voter registration, unprecedented early votes and notable demographic shifts, the headlines insisted that Kamala would claim victory on a wave of abortion-and-Liz Cheney-loving suburban women, comedian-condemning Puerto Ricans, and white dudes impressed by Tim Walz’s camo hat. No wonder Tuesday was a surprise. The America that voted for Mr. Trump has never even made an appearance in these outlets.

Democrats now face a choice. On one side are party grown-ups who are publicly acknowledging this defeat as a sharp voter rebuke of progressive policies. They are admitting that lawfare was a mistake, that the party is culturally out of touch, that lunatic interest groups are running the asylum. They worry about a growing political realignment that threatens the party’s future. That we are hearing these voices is an improvement over the past eight years.

Yet on the other side are the progressive architects of the mess, already rationalizing away the night as a function of racism, sexism and America’s supposed love affair with “fascism.” They mark the loss down to “tactical” errors—the failure to court pro-Palestinian voters, a misallocation of door-knockers, poor timing in ad buys. The party just needs better “messaging” of its “historic achievements.”

No surprise, the media is already running with this latter narrative, again providing the party a soothing alternative to the blunt reality of its ideological fail. Will Democrats be lulled again? If they really want to reconnect with voters, they will at some point have to break with what is proving to be a debilitating feedback loop.

 
acesfull86 said:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-landslide-against-the-media-journalism-news-politics-election-7146410b?mod=opinion_lead_pos10



So long as the left is pointing fingers, let it direct a big, fat digit at the outfit that played the biggest role in losing it this election: the U.S. media.

That isn’t the conventional wisdom, which holds that the press’s naked shilling for Democratic candidates amounts to an in-kind campaign contribution. And no doubt the media’s ceaseless attacks on Donald Trump and Republicans did help round up some undecided voters. Yet the boosterism for Kamala Harris & Co. came at a far bigger cost: A narrative full of fantasy enabled Democrats to live in a world disconnected from the mood and worries of the country.

Among the most damaging of these fantasies was the four-year press assurance that Joe Biden was sharp as a tack. Even video evidence in June of a confused president wandering aimlessly at the Group of Seven was met with claims that the footage was “edited,” “lacking context,” “misleading.” Only when the Trump-Biden debate made Mr. Biden’s decline undeniable did the media drop the charade. Then it immediately turned to recast Ms. Harris—a presidential primary loser turned unpopular vice president—as a political genius and the obvious savior of the Democratic Party. How’d that work out?

In a world with a competent press, Mr. Biden’s failing constitution would have been front-page news in time for Democrats to confront the unpleasant (yet manageable) reality of needed change. A primary would have produced a tested nominee, likely one less encumbered by the Biden record. As Harris adviser (and Obama veteran) David Plouffe complains that Team Biden created a “hole” too “deep” for his sidekick to dig out of, don’t forget the industry whose job it is to call out political fiction, but instead wrote the “Joe Is Fine” novel.

Of course Democrats are shocked that they lost. In a world with a functioning press, the politician who tries to make lemonade out of inflation, crime or border chaos, is slapped as out of touch. In Biden-Harris world, the press printed their spin as gospel. Four years of headlines insisted Americans live in one of the “strongest economies” ever. Crime rates were falling. Red-state governors engaged in “stunts” to magnify the migrant problem. The biggest issues facing our country were climate, systemic racism, abortion and transgender rights.

The fantasies were maintained right up to the election. Even as Republicans pointed to surging voter registration, unprecedented early votes and notable demographic shifts, the headlines insisted that Kamala would claim victory on a wave of abortion-and-Liz Cheney-loving suburban women, comedian-condemning Puerto Ricans, and white dudes impressed by Tim Walz’s camo hat. No wonder Tuesday was a surprise. The America that voted for Mr. Trump has never even made an appearance in these outlets.

Democrats now face a choice. On one side are party grown-ups who are publicly acknowledging this defeat as a sharp voter rebuke of progressive policies. They are admitting that lawfare was a mistake, that the party is culturally out of touch, that lunatic interest groups are running the asylum. They worry about a growing political realignment that threatens the party’s future. That we are hearing these voices is an improvement over the past eight years.

Yet on the other side are the progressive architects of the mess, already rationalizing away the night as a function of racism, sexism and America’s supposed love affair with “fascism.” They mark the loss down to “tactical” errors—the failure to court pro-Palestinian voters, a misallocation of door-knockers, poor timing in ad buys. The party just needs better “messaging” of its “historic achievements.”

No surprise, the media is already running with this latter narrative, again providing the party a soothing alternative to the blunt reality of its ideological fail. Will Democrats be lulled again? If they really want to reconnect with voters, they will at some point have to break with what is proving to be a debilitating feedback loop.
Click to expand...

@board lecturer ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top