Epstein Files | Patel: Trust us

[nycfan]

Not in Patel’s lane and not in Johnson’s lane?

Epstein Lane is a lonely street, apparently.

 

[heelinhell]

Now we’re getting into the conversations we had extensively following the 2024 election. I don’t want to rehash it further than this, especially on an unrelated thread.

I don’t deny that cultural issues have been weaponized to rile up working people, but we have to ask why that strategy works.

When people feel economically abandoned or insecure, they become more susceptible to scapegoating. It’s not that working people are naturally hostile, it’s that they've been manipulated by decades of right-wing messaging filling the void left by a Democratic Party that hasn’t consistently fought for them in visible, legible ways.

Yes, Dems have passed some good policies, but many working people haven’t felt the benefits or don’t connect those benefits to the party. That’s a messaging and organizing failure, not just a voter ignorance problem. If we want economic gains to land politically, we have to talk less like MSNBC panelists and more like people meeting folks where they are, without ceding ground on values or dignity.

There’s obviously room for complexity within this, but that’s my general position. I know that there are large segments of the working class who are too far gone at this point. There is also a segment of people who will always vote for Republicans. But there is a large number of working people who sit out elections or vote based mainly on economic policy, not cultural grievance.

I have said that the Democratic Party is horrible when it comes to messaging. That said, right wing media are not going to inform their viewers about the policies that Dems are advocating to improve the lives of working people.

Now with respect to why cultural issues rile up working people I refer you to Richard Nixon, George Wallace, and Ronald Reagan.

It's not a new strategy. It's a strategy that has worked with working people since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964

 

[finesse]

Not sure I follow.

Because in Cronkite's time, it was worse for all of them, not better. It's just that their voices couldn't be heard.

 

[Paine]

At what point does removing those people's agency with regards to their social issues backfire?

I’m not advocating removing anyone’s agency. People are responsible for their views and choices, including harmful ones. But political strategy isn’t about moral adjudication, it’s about power and coalition building.

The reality is that large parts of the electorate have been conditioned to prioritize cultural grievances over material improvements. That didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it didn’t happen just because those people are inherently reactionary.

We can hold people accountable for what they believe without pretending that disinformation, media ecosystems, and decades of bipartisan economic abandonment had no role in shaping the political landscape. The point is to rebuild trust, not coddle bad ideas. That’s not removing agency, it’s just recognizing that politics is relational.

 

[Paine]

I have said that the Democratic Party is horrible when it comes to messaging. That said, right wing media are not going to inform their viewers about the policies that Dems are advocating to improve the lives of working people.

Now with respect to why cultural issues rile up working people I refer you to Richard Nixon, George Wallace, and Ronald Reagan.

It's not a new strategy. It's a strategy that has worked with working people since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964

You're right that the use of culture war politics to divide working people has a long lineage. Wallace, Nixon, and Reagan all perfected that strategy. But that’s precisely why we have to ask why it still works today. The fact that it’s not new should concern us even more because it suggests that not enough has been done to inoculate people against it.

Right-wing media is absolutely going to distort or ignore what Democrats are doing. But that just makes it even more urgent for Democrats to build their own communication channels that don’t rely on legacy media. If voters only hear about policy wins through partisan filters or not at all, then it’s no wonder they don’t connect those wins to the party.

The right uses cultural fear to fill a vacuum. If working people felt economically secure and politically seen, that message wouldn’t land as hard. We can’t control how the right operates, but we can do more to speak to people clearly, credibly, and persistently, especially outside the elite media bubbles where most of the public simply doesn't live.

 

[finesse]

There are three legs to this, not just economics. That's no more than coequal and maybe less important than race and religion. When Uncle Walter was doing the news, right around 90% of the nation was Christian. That's down to about 62%. There's a lot of resentment that Christianity, especially of the more rigid types, don't get the respect that they used to. We see the racists welcomed in the right. The economic woes are the politest mask they can put on these various resentments.

 

[Paine]

There are three legs to this, not just economics. That's no more than coequal and maybe less important than race and religion. When Uncle Walter was doing the news, right around 90% of the nation was Christian. That's down to about 62%. There's a lot of resentment that Christianity, especially of the more rigid types, don't get the respect that they used to. We see the racists welcomed in the right. The economic woes are the politest mask they can put on these various resentments.

You know that I know this. It gets a bit tiring having to continually express to people that I’m not a class reductionist, but I believe in the primacy of class. Especially when I know you participated in many threads with me on this matter.

Race and religion are powerful forces in American political life, and many reactionary movements have been driven by a sense of loss of cultural dominance, of status, of identity.

But I’d argue, drawing from Vivek Chibber’s Class Matrix, that these forms of resentment don’t emerge in a vacuum. They’re deeply shaped and activated by people’s material conditions and their relationship to power in a class society.

Chibber’s key point is that while culture and identity are important, class, and more specifically, the structural position people occupy in the economy, is the persistent and organizing foundation of political life under capitalism. People may express their frustrations through race or religion, but those frustrations are often intensified when their economic security is undermined. In this sense, the culture war becomes the channel, not necessarily the root.

It’s not about denying that racial and religious identities matter. It’s about recognizing that the conditions under which those identities become politically salient are shaped by capitalism’s failure to meet people’s basic needs. The decline of Christianity as a cultural anchor, for example, doesn’t necessarily lead to resentment on its own, but when paired with job precarity, rising inequality, and social atomization, it’s much easier for right-wing forces to weaponize that loss into political reaction.

That’s why a left project can’t just treat culture as noise but also can’t elevate it above the need to reorganize society around solidarity and material security. If we want to defeat reaction, we have to offer working people an alternative that speaks both to their economic needs and their desire for dignity and belonging. That’s how we cut through the appeal of culture war politics, not by ignoring identity, but by anchoring it in a broader fight for social justice.

If you can stomach it, I’d recommend Chibber’s work on the matter.

 

[finesse]

You know that I know this. It gets a bit tiring having to continually express to people that I’m not a class reductionist, but I believe in the primacy of class. Especially when I know you participated in many threads with me on this matter.

Race and religion are powerful forces in American political life, and many reactionary movements have been driven by a sense of loss of cultural dominance, of status, of identity.

But I’d argue, drawing from Vivek Chibber’s Class Matrix, that these forms of resentment don’t emerge in a vacuum. They’re deeply shaped and activated by people’s material conditions and their relationship to power in a class society.

Chibber’s key point is that while culture and identity are important, class, and more specifically, the structural position people occupy in the economy, is the persistent and organizing foundation of political life under capitalism. People may express their frustrations through race or religion, but those frustrations are often intensified when their economic security is undermined. In this sense, the culture war becomes the channel, not necessarily the root.

It’s not about denying that racial and religious identities matter. It’s about recognizing that the conditions under which those identities become politically salient are shaped by capitalism’s failure to meet people’s basic needs. The decline of Christianity as a cultural anchor, for example, doesn’t necessarily lead to resentment on its own, but when paired with job precarity, rising inequality, and social atomization, it’s much easier for right-wing forces to weaponize that loss into political reaction.

That’s why a left project can’t just treat culture as noise but also can’t elevate it above the need to reorganize society around solidarity and material security. If we want to defeat reaction, we have to offer working people an alternative that speaks both to their economic needs and their desire for dignity and belonging. That’s how we cut through the appeal of culture war politics, not by ignoring identity, but by anchoring it in a broader fight for social justice.

If you can stomach it, I’d recommend Chibber’s work on the matter.

In light of what you say, the most salient point to me is how is the "blame", since some of the economic damage is along the lines of saving the careers of whale oil salesman in the 1800s, is properly assigned and assessed. Obviously the lines are pretty clearly drawn on the cultural and racial issues. There's some overlap but not much. The economic issues are fairly clearly in the other direction. That's not how the voting is going.

 

[Centerpiece]

I agree that critical thinking is crucial, and blindly trusting anything, be it podcasts or legacy media, is a problem. But I think dismissing people as “knuckle dragging” is ultimately unhelpful to our political project.

Real systemic solutions means investing in education, economic opportunity, and rebuilding institutions so people aren’t pushed toward disinformation in the first place. Obviously, none of this easy, especially as Republicans are actively tearing it all down further.

Walter Cronkite was trusted because the system worked better for many when he was prominent. We need to focus on fixing that, not just longing for a bygone era.

The thing is, we're all simple creatures - we humans. And for the most part we still drag our knuckles and breathe through our mouths. We can't help it. It is what it is. And unfortunately, the average American fits that figure more than not.

As a retired school teacher and coach, I'd love to see more investment in education, and of course in more economic opportunity and "institutions". But to suggest that "legacy media" actually "pushed" people toward disinformation and that somehow "non-legacy" media will do a better job seems like pie in the sky.

And obviously, none of it is easy because humans are fairly dim bulbs on the whole, especially here in the U.S., and most especially on the right side of the aisle, so it's an uphill battle to be sure.

Nothing much has changed in legacy media since Walter C., not in terms of major newspapers nor broadcasts from CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS. They all still provide majority of the facts straight and they get them from sources like AP and Reuters. Reading comprehension helps and when your country is clocking in at #31 globally - it don't look good.

I still contend discounting "legacy" media in favor of podcasts and right-wing radio broadcasts - which dominate since the end of the Fairness Doctrine (which BTW was the beginning of the disinformation wheels of motion) - is not necessarily the best course.

But we can agree to disagree on that - but we can agree that Dems could, and should start fighting fire with fire in the realm of said podcasts and more progressive radio broadcasts. The problem is, will it sell? Will it sell ads? Will the knuckle dragging public of the USA buy truly fair and balanced, long form? Car crashes above the fold on the local daily sell papers. The right-wing wackos know that and that's what they splash in people's faces and in their earbuds ad nauseam.

 

[Paine]

I still contend discounting "legacy" media in favor of podcasts and right-wing radio broadcasts - which dominate since the end of the Fairness Doctrine (which BTW was the beginning of the disinformation wheels of motion) - is not necessarily the best course.

But we can agree to disagree on that - but we can agree that Dems could, and should start fighting fire with fire in the realm of said podcasts and more progressive radio broadcasts. The problem is, will it sell? Will it sell ads? Will the knuckle dragging public of the USA buy truly fair and balanced, long form? Car crashes above the fold on the local daily sell papers. The right-wing wackos know that and that's what they splash in people's faces and in their earbuds ad nauseam.

I think there's some misunderstanding here about what I'm actually arguing. I'm not saying we should abandon traditional media like CBS or NBC and turn to right-wing radio or conspiracy podcasts.

What I'm saying is that many people, especially younger and working-class audiences, have tuned out legacy outlets not because they want less seriousness, but because they feel like those outlets don’t speak to their concerns in a direct or trustworthy way. That’s not the same as endorsing disinformation. It’s trying to understand why trust has eroded and where people are turning instead.

And while you’re pointing more to the older networks like CBS and NBC, the broader issue remains: even these more “respectable” institutions often prioritize access, elite consensus, and surface-level reporting over deep engagement with economic or structural issues. That’s part of why they’ve lost ground too; it’s not just that people prefer outrage or spectacle. It’s that they don’t see their lives or struggles reflected in those broadcasts.

We should build up more progressive media: podcasts, radio, whatever form it takes but not by imitating the right's style. The point is to meet people where they are with media that feels honest, grounded, and connected to real material concerns.

Legacy media still has a role to play, but only if it stops treating economic alienation and public distrust as consumer errors rather than as responses to decades of systemic failure.

 

[Paine]

In light of what you say, the most salient point to me is how is the "blame", since some of the economic damage is along the lines of saving the careers of whale oil salesman in the 1800s, is properly assigned and assessed. Obviously the lines are pretty clearly drawn on the cultural and racial issues. There's some overlap but not much. The economic issues are fairly clearly in the other direction. That's not how the voting is going.

I get the frustration. The voting patterns do seem to contradict where the material stakes lie, and that’s part of what makes this moment so disorienting.

But I’d caution against seeing culture and economics as moving on totally separate tracks. What Chibber helps illuminate is that people don’t experience class in the abstract. They experience it through institutions, media, and cultural narratives that help make sense of their material conditions. Culture becomes the lens through which economic grievances are interpreted, especially when no strong class-based explanation is being offered by the political mainstream.

As for blame, the issue isn’t some outdated industry hanging on. It’s that we’ve had decades of bipartisan consensus around policies that eroded the economic foundation for working people, handed power to private interests, and hollowed out local institutions. Voters may not always assign blame accurately, but in the absence of coherent left populist messaging, the right fills the void with scapegoats and cultural grievance as I’ve said.

The cultural appeal works not because economic issues are irrelevant, but because they’re being filtered through stories that misidentify the cause of people’s pain. Many people turn to cultural reaction not out of ignorance, but because it gives them some explanation for what’s gone wrong.

That’s why we need a politics that can connect the dots and name enemies. We must offer people a story rooted in solidarity instead of resentment. Democrats have not been adept at this in a long, long time.

 

[Centerpiece]

I think there's some misunderstanding here about what I'm actually arguing. I'm not saying .

What I'm saying is that many people, especially younger and working-class audiences, have tuned out legacy outlets not because they want less seriousness, but because they feel like those outlets don’t speak to their concerns in a direct or trustworthy way. That’s not the same as endorsing disinformation. It’s trying to understand why trust has eroded and where people are turning instead.

And while you’re pointing more to the older networks like CBS and NBC, the broader issue remains: even these more “respectable” institutions often prioritize access, elite consensus, and surface-level reporting over deep engagement with economic or structural issues. That’s part of why they’ve lost ground too; it’s not just that people prefer outrage or spectacle. It’s that they don’t see their lives or struggles reflected in those broadcasts.

We should build up more progressive media: podcasts, radio, whatever form it takes but not by imitating the right's style. The point is to meet people where they are with media that feels honest, grounded, and connected to real material concerns.

Legacy media still has a role to play, but only if it stops treating economic alienation and public distrust as consumer errors rather than as responses to decades of systemic failure.

Yes, I think that is somewhere in your thoughts and posts... that you don't think "we should abandon traditional media like CBS or NBC and turn to right-wing radio or conspiracy podcasts." I get it. And I think you're also saying that the left should consider bombarding the airwaves and broad band with polar opposite viewpoints. With that we are of a mind.

My problem is it seems like you've taken the B.S. bait which Trump himself perpetuated - about how all "legacy media" is fake news and that they (LM) have been projecting a bunch of hooey on the American people since... since Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Huntley AND Brinkley.

Of course MSM or Legacy Media has to present surface-level reporting over deep engagement. It's already proven the populace is at #31. It's been well-documented that print and broadcast media has been using 5th grade reading level verbiage since who knows how long. It probably is lower than that now.

Also, you can't expect anyone to believe the "bro culture" and the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers are reading long form anything. But they will put in their earbuds to listen to BS while they drive around in their pickups and plow their fields.

It doesn't help that you're promulgating the myth that all legacy media, all main stream media, is the boogey man and to be distrusted.

The whole idea was to plant seeds of doubt in the very gullible minds of the dim-witted American populace and it worked like a charm. Not to be trusted are those who believe periodicals and journals like Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, The NYT, The Chicago Sun Times, The Atlanta J&C, The Sacramento Bee et. al. - along with CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS are all "compromised" and unreliable sources which are not to be trusted... or at the very least should no longer be valued sources.

Apparently, 30% of the voting public would rather put in their earbuds and listen to the podcasts of... who? Joe Rogan and Theo Von? At the exspense of "legacy media".

No. Legacy Media is not the bad guy here. It was Trump and the "fake news" misinformation team which has planted that seed. And it seems as if it may be working on you as well.

 

[Paine]

Yes, I think that is somewhere in your thoughts and posts... that you don't think "we should abandon traditional media like CBS or NBC and turn to right-wing radio or conspiracy podcasts." I get it. And I think you're also saying that the left should consider bombarding the airwaves and broad band with polar opposite viewpoints. With that we are of a mind.

My problem is it seems like you've taken the B.S. bait which Trump himself perpetuated - about how all "legacy media" is fake news and that they (LM) have been projecting a bunch of hooey on the American people since... since Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Huntley AND Brinkley.

Of course MSM or Legacy Media has to present surface-level reporting over deep engagement. It's already proven the populace is at #31. It's been well-documented that print and broadcast media has been using 5th grade reading level verbiage since who knows how long. It probably is lower than that now.

Also, you can't expect anyone to believe the "bro culture" and the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers are reading long form anything. But they will put in their earbuds to listen to BS while they drive around in their pickups and plow their fields.

It doesn't help that you're promulgating the myth that all legacy media, all main stream media, is the boogey man and to be distrusted.

The whole idea was to plant seeds of doubt in the very gullible minds of the dim-witted American populace and it worked like a charm. Not to be trusted are those who believe periodicals and journals like Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, The NYT, The Chicago Sun Times, The Atlanta J&C, The Sacramento Bee et. al. - along with CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS are all "compromised" and unreliable sources which are not to be trusted... or at the very least should no longer be valued sources.

Apparently, 30% of the voting public would rather put in their earbuds and listen to the podcasts of... who? Joe Rogan and Theo Von? At the exspense of "legacy media".

No. Legacy Media is not the bad guy here. It was Trump and the "fake news" misinformation team which has planted that seed. And it seems as if it may be working on you as well.

I appreciate the back and forth here, and I want to be really clear: I believe we need better, more responsive, and more grounded institutions of media and reporting, not fewer.

That’s part of why I find it a bit surprising that you’d suggest I’ve fallen victim to Trump’s fake news framing. I think that kind of all or nothing lens, either you trust everything legacy media says or you’re part of a misinformation problem, misses a lot of the nuance here. The erosion of trust in media isn’t just the result of disinformation campaigns. It’s also a response to real, longstanding shortcomings in how economic, structural, and working class concerns have been covered, or more often, not covered at all.

My point isn’t that CBS or the New York Times are fake or evil, but that people tune out when they feel like their lives and struggles aren’t reflected, or when coverage seems shaped more by insider consensus or advertiser incentives than by real curiosity about the public’s needs. That doesn’t mean we give up on those outlets. It means we push them to do better, and in the meantime, we build new sources that speak to people directly and with credibility.

People are complex, and yes, many of them listen to podcasts or media that doesn’t fit neat stereotypes. For example, many people who drive pickups or work in agriculture also listen to podcasts while they work, and dismissing their media choices or experiences can come across as looking down on them. The goal is to meet people where they are, not to paint entire audiences as gullible or dim-witted.

I also agree with you that some podcasts tend to present things at a simpler level, which isn’t surprising given the broad audience they serve. But that also means there’s space and a real need for progressive media that’s both accessible and deeply engaged, that connects the dots on economic and structural issues in ways people can relate to.

Also, I’d push back a bit on the idea that legacy outlets present news in a shallow way simply because the audience is too simple-minded. What gets covered and how it’s framed is shaped by a range of structural factors:corporate ownership, advertising pressures, access journalism, and a professional culture that often prioritizes elite consensus and incrementalism over deep structural analysis. These aren’t conspiracies, these factors really do influence the scope and depth of coverage, and they help explain why so many people have turned to alternative media in search of something that feels more honest and relevant to them.

I appreciate your concern about misinformation and distrust in media, and I think this is exactly why we need to focus on building bridges and trusted sources, rather than dismissing people or falling into cynical traps.

Again, I listen to podcasts. I read long form pieces. I read straight news from legacy outlets. I’m probably one of the only 25 year olds in the country that subscribes to print magazines and journals about politics.

Thanks again for the discussion, these are tough questions, and it’s good to hash them out.

 

[Centerpiece]

I appreciate the back and forth here, and I want to be really clear: I believe we need better, more responsive, and more grounded institutions of media and reporting, not fewer.

That’s part of why I find it a bit surprising that you’d suggest I’ve fallen victim to Trump’s fake news framing. I think that kind of all or nothing lens, either you trust everything legacy media says or you’re part of a misinformation problem, misses a lot of the nuance here. The erosion of trust in media isn’t just the result of disinformation campaigns. It’s also a response to real, longstanding shortcomings in how economic, structural, and working class concerns have been covered, or more often, not covered at all.

My point isn’t that CBS or the New York Times are fake or evil, but that people tune out when they feel like their lives and struggles aren’t reflected, or when coverage seems shaped more by insider consensus or advertiser incentives than by real curiosity about the public’s needs. That doesn’t mean we give up on those outlets. It means we push them to do better, and in the meantime, we build new sources that speak to people directly and with credibility.

People are complex, and yes, many of them listen to podcasts or media that doesn’t fit neat stereotypes. For example, many people who drive pickups or work in agriculture also listen to podcasts while they work, and dismissing their media choices or experiences can come across as looking down on them. The goal is to meet people where they are, not to paint entire audiences as gullible or dim-witted.

I also agree with you that some podcasts tend to present things at a simpler level, which isn’t surprising given the broad audience they serve. But that also means there’s space and a real need for progressive media that’s both accessible and deeply engaged, that connects the dots on economic and structural issues in ways people can relate to.

Also, I’d push back a bit on the idea that legacy outlets present news in a shallow way simply because the audience is too simple-minded. What gets covered and how it’s framed is shaped by a range of structural factors:corporate ownership, advertising pressures, access journalism, andWhat gets covered and how it’s framed is shaped by a range of structural factors:corporate ownership, advertising pressures, access journalism, These aren’t conspiracies, but they do influence the scope and depth of coverage, and they help explain why so many people have turned to alternative media in search of something that feels more honest and relevant to them.

I appreciate your concern about misinformation and distrust in media, and I think this is exactly why we need to focus on building bridges and trusted sources, rather than dismissing people or falling into cynical traps.

Again, I listen to podcasts. I read long form pieces. I read straight news from legacy outlets. I’m probably one of the only 25 year olds in the country

Thanks again for the discussion, these are tough questions, and it’s good to hash them out.

Well said. And let's stop it at your first sentence: "... we need better, more responsive, and more grounded institutions of media and reporting..." My contention is Joe Rogan and Theo Von may not fit the bill and that continuing the myth that MSM is fake news doesn't help. That's all.

And I will agree about "What gets covered and how it’s framed is shaped by a range of structural factors:corporate ownership, advertising pressures, access journalism...". Indeed.

But presenting at a simpler level or in a shallow way is just the way it is. Remember: we are #31.

Indeed, you may be the ONLY 25 year old that subscribes to print magazines and journals about politics. At 25 I was a busker in Europe in the 1980's. Playing bluegrass on the street corners of Paris, London, Amsterdam, Milano, Zürich, etc. I read the International Herald Tribune. The USA today was nothing but cartoon pictures. After 7 years, I returned stateside in 1992. I voted for Clinton, though Perot made some good arguments against NAFTA... and we see that he may have had a point.

But let's not de-rail the thread any further... It's about the Epstein Files and the fact that Trump is most assuredly knee-deep in it. Regardless of what podcasts which host the VP or the Director of the FBI say.

 

[Paine]

Well said. And let's stop it at your first sentence: "... we need better, more responsive, and more grounded institutions of media and reporting..." My contention is Joe Rogan and Theo Von may not fit the bill and that continuing the myth that MSM is fake news doesn't help. That's all.

And I will agree about "What gets covered and how it’s framed is shaped by a range of structural factors:corporate ownership, advertising pressures, access journalism...". Indeed.

But presenting at a simpler level or in a shallow way is just the way it is. Remember: we are #31.

Indeed, you may be the ONLY 25 year old that subscribes to print magazines and journals about politics. At 25 I was a busker in Europe in the 1980's. Playing bluegrass on the street corners of Paris, London, Amsterdam, Milano, Zürich, etc. I read the International Herald Tribune. The USA today was nothing but cartoon pictures. After 7 years, I returned stateside in 1982. I voted for Clinton, though Perot made some good arguments against NAFTA... and we see that he may have had a point.

But let's not de-rail the thread any further... It's about the Epstein Files and the fact that Trump is most assuredly knee-deep in it. Regardless of what podcasts which host the VP or the Director of the FBI say.

I hear you, and I appreciate the spirit of your response, especially the agreement about the structural forces that shape legacy media.

But just to clarify one last time: I’m not defending Joe Rogan or Theo Von as journalistic models. I never said they fit the bill or are the gold standard for responsible media. What I said is that we should try to understand why people, especially working class or younger people, are drawn to these formats. It’s not because they’re too dumb for good information. It’s often because they’re hungry for something that feels more honest, less scripted, and more directly engaged with their day to day lives.

I’m also not perpetuating the mainstream media is fake news myth. That’s a separate thing entirely. Trump weaponized that phrase to shut down scrutiny and create an alternate reality.

My point is different. I’m saying that people’s trust in traditional outlets has eroded for real, material reasons. You can think legacy media plays an essential role, which I do, and still acknowledge it’s fallen short in earning or maintaining trust, especially outside urban, college educated bubbles.

And while I get the point about literacy and simplicity, I’d just caution against leaning too hard into we are number 31 as a blanket explanation. If we write off shallow coverage as inevitable because that’s just where the public is, we’re closing the door on what media could be. People often rise to the level of discourse they’re given the chance to engage with.

Anyway, I’ll drop it here too since I know the original thread was about Epstein. I just think we need to build a left that listens, communicates clearly, and trusts that people, regardless of what they drive or listen to, are worth engaging without condescension.

Thanks for the thoughtful exchange.

 

[wmheel1287]

I'll be honest and just say that I'm too damned tired to make an effort anymore to meet everyone where they are at. I just began to wonder why it always was me having to adjust, understand, empathize, etc and never the other way around. I can say without much reservation that practically nobody has ever tried to modify their own approach to meet me where I was. I've done a lot of that kind of thing for a lot of people for a long time and it really hasn't helped much politically. It's made me successful and popular...but also exhausted and emptied out.

I look back on all the years of advocacy and work and wonder what exactly I was ever fighting for in the first place. It surely didn't make any difference in a positive direction.

At this point I just feel like leaving it to the various factions to tear it apart and piece it back together as they see fit...seems that's pretty much predestined.

As someone who makes a living building connections with people through media, I disagree with Paine that one can create a media environment that values truth and ideas over sensationalism and lies. We have become such voracious consumers of the train wrecks in society that we can't back away from it. I don't personally think it's condescending to simply observe that 95% of what holds the attention of Americans now is absolutely mindless and silly or outrageous.

 

[Paine]

I'll be honest and just say that I'm too damned tired to make an effort anymore to meet everyone where they are at. I just began to wonder why it always was me having to adjust, understand, empathize, etc and never the other way around. I can say without much reservation that practically nobody has ever tried to modify their own approach to meet me where I was. I've done a lot of that kind of thing for a lot of people for a long time and it really hasn't helped much politically. It's made me successful and popular...but also exhausted and emptied out.

I look back on all the years of advocacy and work and wonder what exactly I was ever fighting for in the first place. It surely didn't make any difference in a positive direction.

At this point I just feel like leaving it to the various factions to tear it apart and piece it back together as they see fit...seems that's pretty much predestined at this point.

I appreciate you sharing this. Honestly, what you said really struck a chord with me based on my time trying to find my way since graduating. It’s clear you’ve done hard work, tried to bridge divides, and fought to build something meaningful in this environment. That deserves a lot of respect.

Also, just to be clear, when I critique the system or talk about where things have fallen short, I’m not trying to diminish the value of the work you’ve done, especially the advocacy and mentorship side of it, which clearly matters and has had an impact on real people. What I’m talking about is the broader picture of political organizing, institutional design, and power, the kind of terrain that no one person can fix alone. If it sometimes comes off like I’m making it personal, I want you to know that’s not where I’m trying to come from.

What I do believe is that there’s a large group of people who aren’t dug in, but also don’t see anyone really speaking to their struggles in a meaningful way. Politics hasn’t felt real or relevant to them. They’re who I want us to reach.

And I get your frustration with how much of media today leans toward the sensational and the silly. But I don’t think that means most people are incapable of deeper engagement. I think it says more about how today’s media is structured: what gets promoted, what’s profitable, what algorithms amplify, than about what people actually value deep down.

People tune into junk food content because that’s what’s made easiest to access, not necessarily because that’s all they want. There’s a real opportunity for us to create and support media that speaks honestly to people’s material realities, and I think many would respond to that if it were made more visible and accessible.

 

[ColdBlueSteel]

I'll repeat this again for you because you're slow: An FBI director has no business appearing on podcasts, no matter which side of the political spectrum he or she falls on. Period.

I’m slow. Why not?
Please, we could all benefit from your intelligent, well-reasoned expletive-ridden explanation.

 

[EyeballKid]

I’m slow. Why not?
Please, we could all benefit from your intelligent, well-reasoned expletive-ridden explanation.

I’ll take a shot:

Because an FBI Director can’t (or shouldn’t) really publicly comment on too much. Particularly in a setting that is politically charged and in which tons of conspiracy theorists engage.

It’s a no-win situation, so there’s no legit reason for a sitting FBI director to engage.

 

[ColdBlueSteel]

But let's not de-rail the thread any further... It's about the Epstein Files and the fact that Trump is most assuredly knee-deep in it. Regardless of what podcasts which host the VP or the Director of the FBI say.

What casual podcast listener or MSM media consumer did not know this despicable fact years upon years ago?