Epstein Files | WSJ releases 50th bday letter from Trump to Epstein

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 889
  • Views: 21K
  • Politics 
I think you might be missing what I’m actually saying. I’m not arguing that cable news needs to turn into C-SPAN seminars or that Americans are dying for 60-minute segments on monetary policy. I’m saying that the stories media chooses to emphasize (the endless Trump drama, the lack of serious labor coverage, the narrow policy debate) reflect structural blind spots, not just audience preferences.

People don’t need lectures, they need reporting that connects to their lives. When you treat politics as a game and ignore people’s material concerns, they stop paying attention, not because they’re too dumb to care, but because it doesn’t feel like it matters. That’s a media failure, not a public one.
We may have a chicken or egg conundrum here...

Back in the day when reporting the "straight" news was a profit $$$ loss but had an audience actually interested in "real" news, there was a national consensus when it came to trust in accuracy of reporting.

Fast forward to Rupert and Roger Ailes eschewing "straight" news and going for a targeted conservative audience to generate a profitable "news" organization that appealed to our not so better part of angels of our nature.

MSM corporatists saw that the news could be a profit generating engine if giving up on "straight" reporting was replaced with what Natalie Merchant sung..."give them what they want "

So did the soft and lazy minds of America create the media we have today or did the media create soft and lazy minds we have today ?
 
I think you're right that there's a feedback loop between media and public demand, but I don’t think it’s actually a mystery which came first.

The consolidation and commercialization of media shaped what the public came to expect. When media outlets are owned by massive corporations with a mandate to maximize profit, they’ll chase eyeballs over substance every time. These outlets are engineering desire.

People are still hungry for real stories that speak to their lives. Again, that’s why shows, podcasts, and outlets that break from the usual corporate formula are rising in popularity. But the dominant media ecosystem makes it hard for those voices to scale. The public didn’t ask for politics to be treated like a reality show. That was a decision made by people in power, and now we’re dealing with the fallout.

It’s not about romanticizing the past or pretending the public was ever perfectly informed. It’s about recognizing that structure, ownership, and incentives matter. What we have now didn’t evolve naturally, it was built.

If it really were a mystery whether the chicken or the egg came first here, then why did Americans watch more straight news back in the day? Was it purely because that was all that was on, or was it also because the big three networks actually felt some level of civic obligation to inform the public?

I’d argue it was both and that the shift didn’t happen because Americans suddenly stopped caring about real information. It happened because the media stopped prioritizing its civic function once profit became the overriding incentive. The Fairness Doctrine was repealed, media ownership consolidated, and “infotainment” became the model. People didn’t vote for that with their remotes, it was imposed from the top down.

So yeah, the audience changed. But they were shaped by what the industry gave them.

The tension here is that many posters believe podcasts are just an extension of this “slopification” of American news. I think that’s certainly true of some, but their explosion in popularity also reflects something deeper:Google Search
I can't disagree other than to offer the possibility that people did vote with their remotes when they flocked to Fox "News"

but moving a tiny step away from political media to entertainment media that enthralled the hoi polloi such as :

Jerry Springer
Morton Downey
Geraldo
Maury Povich

Did media create the interest in this or did they recognize the sizeable sordid low minded interest in shows like these ?
 
I can't disagree other than to offer the possibility that people did vote with their remotes when they flocked to Fox "News"

but moving a tiny step away from political media to entertainment media that enthralled the hoi polloi such as :

Jerry Springer
Morton Downey
Geraldo
Maury Povich

Did media create the interest in this or did they recognize the sizeable sordid low minded interest in shows like these ?
As far as modern multimedia, think about how shows like Candid Camera, I've Got a Secret and Kids Say the Darndest Things, all "wholesome family entertainment" was really an attempt to capture a real life faux pas. I suspect that it's probably endemic to the human condition and started the first time someone laughed when someone else fell on their ass. We just do it in color with sound and send it around the world.
 
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.
Serious question: What is elite consensus? I mean, I know what it means, but I'm talking about specifically. You've used this term several times throughout the discussion, just trying to get an idea of what issues and ideas the "elites" are in lockstep over...
 
What casual podcast listener or MSM media consumer did not know this despicable fact years upon years ago?
Exactly. It is indeed old news. Even Trump tried to slough it off as just that. Elon knows this too... BUT he did it on social media just to jab Trump. Musk knows it won't move the needle of any magas, but he knows it will get Trump's goat by saying it in front of God and everybody one more time.
 
Serious question: What is elite consensus? I mean, I know what it means, but I'm talking about specifically. You've used this term several times throughout the discussion, just trying to get an idea of what issues and ideas the "elites" are in lockstep over...
good question...

Also, addressing his diss on incremental change, I have argued that incremental change has allowed Americans to metabolize change...civil rights, gay rights, women's rights

But I would welcome being informed by Paine when left radical change has moved America forward with deep structural analysis
 
good question...

Also, addressing his diss on incremental change, I have argued that incremental change has allowed Americans to metabolize change...civil rights, gay rights, women's rights

But I would welcome being informed by Paine when left radical change has moved America forward with deep structural analysis
To my notion it's been the combination of the rate of cultural changes and technological dislocations destroying and changing employment conditions that has led to the revanchism on the right. It needs to be more like the myth of boiling a frog.
 
I think you're right that there's a feedback loop between media and public demand, but I don’t think it’s actually a mystery which came first.

The consolidation and commercialization of media shaped what the public came to expect. When media outlets are owned by massive corporations with a mandate to maximize profit, they’ll chase eyeballs over substance every time. These outlets are engineering desire.

People are still hungry for real stories that speak to their lives. Again, that’s why shows, podcasts, and outlets that break from the usual corporate formula are rising in popularity. But the dominant media ecosystem makes it hard for those voices to scale. The public didn’t ask for politics to be treated like a reality show. That was a decision made by people in power, and now we’re dealing with the fallout.

It’s not about romanticizing the past or pretending the public was ever perfectly informed. It’s about recognizing that structure, ownership, and incentives matter. What we have now didn’t evolve naturally, it was built.

If it really were a mystery whether the chicken or the egg came first here, then why did Americans watch more straight news back in the day? Was it purely because that was all that was on, or was it also because the big three networks actually felt some level of civic obligation to inform the public?

I’d argue it was both and that the shift didn’t happen because Americans suddenly stopped caring about real information. It happened because the media stopped prioritizing its civic function once profit became the overriding incentive. The Fairness Doctrine was repealed, media ownership consolidated, and “infotainment” became the model. People didn’t vote for that with their remotes, it was imposed from the top down.

So yeah, the audience changed. But they were shaped by what the industry gave them.

The tension here is that many posters believe podcasts are just an extension of this “slopification” of American news. I think that’s certainly true of some, but their explosion in popularity also reflects something deeper: a hunger among everyday people to be spoken to directly, without the condescension or spectacle.
"I don’t think it’s actually a mystery which came first."
There is no mystery. It was Reagan doing away with the Fairness Doctrine. The very next thing we got was Rush Limbaugh coming over the FREE BROADCAST AIRWAYS spouting his hard-right-wing bull shit. His radio show got traction amongst: the redneck, racists, homophobic, misogynists and rich Chamber of Commerce/small government Libertarian types who actually believed Reagan and the lies about the "Welfare Queen" and the "they're coming after our guns" and "Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married", and the "big government is bad" type of tea-partying magas we see today. There was advertising money to be made. There was a market there. Darn near half the country - the "silent majority" ate that shit up big time. Couple years later - in walks FOX "News" - a self -admitted entertainment cable network and Bill O'fuckin'Reilly and the rest is history.

THAT is exactly what came first. And now, that same mind-set and same type of folk are doing it all over again on streaming platforms with their "podcasts" and "SubStacks" - and your "long-form" diatribes. Sure, they're more in-depth and go deeper down the Q-Anon rabbit holes.

But it's still all insidious and only a fool thinks that the old school, main stream and Legacy Media of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and even CNN - before Fairness Doctrine died - came first in the destruction.

Today's right-wing podcasts are INDEED just an extension of this “slopification” of American news.
 
But I digress... back to the OP. Musk jabbed Trump with the Epstein comment just to fuck with Trump. Period. He knows it wouldn't move the needle on the left or the right.

Also in the OP - the damn Director of the FBI has no fucking business going on some pod cast - Especially the likes of Joe fucking Rogain. And the VP has no friggin business going on a Theo Von "trap" show.
 
Last edited:
It cannot be said enough times: the Fairness Doctrine or its absence is not at all how we got here. It only applied to broadcast media -- not radio, not cable, and of course not internet had it been around.
 
It cannot be said enough times: the Fairness Doctrine or its absence is not at all how we got here. It only applied to broadcast media -- not radio, not cable, and of course not internet had it been around.
No, but the attempt by Congress to replace it and do so was vetoed by Reagan and a later attempt ran into the same threat from Bush. It's not that the appreciation of the need for it vanished, it's that the Republicans wouldn't allow it to continue.
 
And just where did Rush Limbaugh start? That's right, over the free airways of BROADCASTING!
He wasn't on cable. He wasn't streaming over the internet. Hell, Al Gore hadn't even invented the internet yet ;)

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 played a role in the rise of conservative talk radio, including The Rush Limbaugh Show. Period.

  • Established by the FCC in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to present both sides of controversial issues of public importance.
  • The idea was that since there were a limited number of broadcast licenses, broadcasters, as trustees of the public airwaves, had an obligation to ensure a diversity of viewpoints.
  • The doctrine didn't require equal time for opposing viewpoints, but rather a reasonable opportunity to present contrasting views.
  • The Fairness Doctrine was repealed by the FCC in 1987.
  • Opponents of the doctrine argued it violated the First Amendment rights of broadcasters by giving the government control over content and chilled debate.
  • The repeal of the doctrine allowed broadcasters to focus solely on popular programming without having to present opposing viewpoints, which facilitated the rise of partisan talk radio.
It can't be said enough: Rush Limbaugh was "allowed" to do his shtick over the free air of AM radio ONLY after the Fairness Doctrine went away.

And after Rush - the fucking flood gates were opened. Sure FOX is cable, and cable and internet aren't "broadcast" over the free airwaves... duh! BUT FOX AND ALL THE SHIT HAPPENED WHEN THE POWERS THAT BE SAW THAT WHAT RUSH WAS DOING CREATED ADVERTISING BUCKS - AND WORSE - AT LEAST HALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WANTED TO LAP UP THAT SHIT.

Say what you want, but if the debate is about "when it started" or "how it started" or "who started it" - it was Ronnie fucking Raygun and the repeal of the Fairness doctrine which facilitated Rush... Once Murdoch and whomever else saw the dollar signs and the gullibility of the dumbfuck American populace - the rest was easy pickings. Even Trump figured that one out. He of the long-standing card-holding Democratic voting affiliation.

And to bring this back to the OP - Trump is indeed a pedo, a rapist and in the Epstein files - and NO the magas don't give a two shits about it. And Musk knows this. He just wanted to piss in Donald's face. Period.
 
When I talk about elite consensus, I’m referring to a set of core economic and political beliefs broadly shared among the dominant political, business, and media classes, regardless of party, that shape the framework within which “serious” policy debates happen.

This consensus isn’t about every detail, it’s about the major underlying assumptions that guide how elites think about governance, the economy, and social order.

Some key features of this elite consensus include: a commitment to neoliberal economic policies such as free markets, deregulation, low taxes on capital, and trade liberalization. It includes acceptance of the global capitalist system, supporting globalization, financialization, and multinational corporations as the engines of growth. There is a prioritization of fiscal responsibility, with a strong focus on balanced budgets and debt management, often at the expense of expansive social programs.
Do you really not understand why this tripe is so insulting? It is so tiring when you chalk up every difference of opinion to some sort of corruption at the hands of a shadowy elite -- especially since you are provably wrong for the most part.

1. When I was young, I believed all that leftist political theory. Multinational corporations = bad. Free trade = bad. etc. So I decided to study the matter with an open mind, but an expectation that I would see all the flaws I'd been assured were there. My expectation was not remotely accurate. So I changed my views. Not because I sold out to an elite consensus or aligned myself with the dominant classes -- because that's the truth, as best I can see it.

Thing is: at least I had an excuse for my errant views. At the time, there was real penetration of the American market from East Asia mostly from Japan only. By mid to late 90s, the trade-led economies of East Asia more generally were humming. Meanwhile, the leftist economic policies in Latin American had more or less led to ruination. It should be shocking to think that Cambodia has the same level of economic development as every Central American country save Costa Rica. CAMBODIA! You don't have to hold a brief for Allende -- which I won't -- to note that Chile is now substantially richer than Argentina. While Argentina was busy trying to make all its products itself, Chile started exporting wine and fish to the world.

2. Nowhere in your world view is there any room for truth. I also used to be like that, sort of. I accepted the critiques of positivist epistemology and indeed I still have a soft spot for epistemic deconstructionists like the great philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. But also, at the time time, science works, right? We are having this conversation because someone invented the transistor, and the integrated circuit, and digital conversions and all the other stuff that makes the internet possible. All the while, there were leftists talking about how science just reflects the views of the dominant class, that the elite had fallen into techno-optimism (contrary to some of your claims, neither techno-optimism nor critiques of it are in any way new -- one need only read Galbraith or D. Bell to know that).

In other words: there was a clash of ideas. The anti-capitalist, anti-globalizing left versus the technocrats. It was not much of a contest, though. While the left was celebrating the great anti-hegemony of revolutionary regimes in Cuba and Nicaragua and elsewhere in Latin America and Africa, the technocrats built the internet. And then the left saw that internet (this was before you were born) and imagined it as the greatest tool of democracy ever invented. There were countless homilies in the pages of the Nation and Dissent and other leftist sources about how the hegemony of the corporate media was about to be broken, that soon everyone would be able to make their voices heard and the authentic populist perspective would be finally revealed.

I kid you not. The left foresaw twitter and thought it was the greatest thing ever. I was horrified by the prospect. I guess this is when I became a "technocrat." I could not see the benefit of letting just anyone have a soap box. It seemed like epistemic suicide. And I used to have this conversation with leftists. I would cite the now-classic Onion article, "Nation Eagerly Awaits Address By Uneducated Forklift Driver on Limbaugh" and ask -- this times a million is what you want? Yes, came the response. Because, I was lectured, once the people can truly speak unfettered, the false prophets like Rush will be driven under.

I don't think we need to debate too much about who was right.

3. So it really pisses me off when people, with the benefit of all that history and natural experiments, return to the same critiques that were so thoroughly debunked. It pisses a lot of people off, which is why Bernie Sanders was such a problem. Bernie, like most leftists, has no theory of political disagreement. Everything is just corruption. If you think markets work better than state industries, you're sold out to the capitalist elites. Whether markets do in fact work better (they do!) is irrelevant because there's no space for intellectuality. As you yourself say, everything is class politics.

Class politics cannot explain the internet. Class politics cannot explain electric vehicles. It cannot explain the apparent conquering of the business cycle (the the last cyclical recession we've had was 2000, and that was mild).

4, So then the leftists come back with the greatest hits: the famine in Ethiopia caused by the IMF, the corruption and depravity of some world bank programs under McNamara, etc. I know all that. So do the economists who work at those institutions. While leftists languish in the shadow of past failures, the IMF and the World Bank were reformed. They don't do that naked Washington Consensus stuff any more (ironic since y'all have oriented your entire critique around an idea that is no longer all that relevant in practice).

It is exhausting, really. Before the advent of social media, which brought out the ZenModes and the right-wing know-nothings, the constant goalpost-moving, circular arguments, bad faith attacks and dubious empirical claims filled the pages of the Nation and nascent left-wing online media.

And the progressive law students? OMG. Kids who thought they were super-smart because they got As in their humanities courses at Cornell or Duke (even though the median GPAs in the humanities at those schools was like 3.8). Then they got to law school and they weren't superstars any more. Did they change their study habits? Get more serious? Open their mind? Nope. The professors were all neoliberals (that was the word at the time but the idea was more or less the same -- remember that the left both-sided in the 2000 election). It became something of a conspiracy.

In particular, there was one professor who was so much of a neoliberal optimist that no progressive student could ever get an A. It wasn't even worth trying, they said. Well, I got an A+ from that professor. Did that change their views? Of course not. Obviously what had happened was that I sold out.

5. It is just as difficult to talk with a committed leftist as a MAGA. There is the same commitment to truth (i.e. none), the same disparagement of experts, the same irrelevant bullshit used to deflect what can't be answered.

6. So after all this, after a lifetime of being told that I was a corrupt sellout to the corporate class because I followed the evidence (note: right-wingers were even more hostile, sensing accurately that I was still progressive in outlook but frustrated that I could speak economics better than they could (law and econ being a very conservative sub-field at the time), I have so little tolerance for the constant implication that mere deviation from the party line made me automatically suspect.

You guys really need a more nuanced theory of knowledge. There has to be a way to formulate your critique without sweeping in authentic knowledge and good faith inquiry. "Multi-national corporations" ain't it. Most people who use that phrase don't really know what a corporation is or does, let alone what it would mean to be "multinational" (this is a bogeyman which, as described in the pages of the Nation, exists nowhere).

There has to be a way to acknowledge that corporate power can be especially problematic in a post-industrial age AND to acknowledge that, without corporations, our economy would be stuck in the 19th century. If corporations had not been invented, we would not be having this conversation -- in part because the internet didn't exist, and in part because we'd both be due back in the factory for our second 9 hour shift following our 15 minutes for lunch. That's right. Corporations are necessary for us to be even having this conversation about how wicked corporate power can be. And I'm also tired of being accused of apology when I point out this unavoidable fact.

The real program for progressive political economy should be to untie that apparent paradox: how can the corporation, the locus of oppression, also be the institution by which billions escaped poverty. I mean, I think I remember a leftist or two who situated the resolution of such paradoxes, or contradictions if you will, at the very heart not only of social theory but of history. Alas, there's a different approach taken when the paradox du jour is more or less created by bad progressive theory.
 
You're right that the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast media, not cable or the internet. But to say it had nothing to do with how we got here misses the bigger picture.

Its repeal in 1987 signaled a broader shift in how the government viewed media, from something with civic obligations to just another profit-driven industry.

That deregulation opened the door for partisan talk radio like Limbaugh on radio, which was covered under the Fairness Doctrine before. It set the template for Fox News and eventually the broader infotainment model that dominates today. It’s not about the Fairness Doctrine alone, but about how a series of structural changes hollowed out media’s public function. This was one key part of that shift.
Imagine for a minute what Bush 43 or Trump would do with the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was completely unworkable. That's why it died. Its repeal had nothing at all to do with the shift you describe. It had everything to do with CNN. The Fairness Doctrine could not prevent Fox News. In fact, had it been retained, we probably would have gotten Fox News before we did. The reason Rush got big was there was a huge demand for his particular brand of "political" "commentary." That would have happened regardless of the Fairness Doctrine.
 
And just where did Rush Limbaugh start? That's right, over the free airways of BROADCASTING!
He wasn't on cable. He wasn't streaming over the internet. Hell, Al Gore hadn't even invented the internet yet ;)

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 played a role in the rise of conservative talk radio, including The Rush Limbaugh Show. Period.

  • Established by the FCC in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to present both sides of controversial issues of public importance.
  • The idea was that since there were a limited number of broadcast licenses, broadcasters, as trustees of the public airwaves, had an obligation to ensure a diversity of viewpoints.
  • The doctrine didn't require equal time for opposing viewpoints, but rather a reasonable opportunity to present contrasting views.
  • The Fairness Doctrine was repealed by the FCC in 1987.
  • Opponents of the doctrine argued it violated the First Amendment rights of broadcasters by giving the government control over content and chilled debate.
  • The repeal of the doctrine allowed broadcasters to focus solely on popular programming without having to present opposing viewpoints, which facilitated the rise of partisan talk radio.
It can't be said enough: Rush Limbaugh was "allowed" to do his shtick over the free air of AM radio ONLY after the Fairness Doctrine went away.

And after Rush - the fucking flood gates were opened. Sure FOX is cable, and cable and internet aren't "broadcast" over the free airwaves... duh! BUT FOX AND ALL THE SHIT HAPPENED WHEN THE POWERS THAT BE SAW THAT WHAT RUSH WAS DOING CREATED ADVERTISING BUCKS - AND WORSE - AT LEAST HALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WANTED TO LAP UP THAT SHIT.

Say what you want, but if the debate is about "when it started" or "how it started" or "who started it" - it was Ronnie fucking Raygun and the repeal of the Fairness doctrine which facilitated Rush... Once Murdoch and whomever else saw the dollar signs and the gullibility of the dumbfuck American populace - the rest was easy pickings. Even Trump figured that one out. He of the long-standing card-holding Democratic voting affiliation.

And to bring this back to the OP - Trump is indeed a pedo, a rapist and in the Epstein files - and NO the magas don't give a two shits about it. And Musk knows this. He just wanted to piss in Donald's face. Period.
But Rush was broadcasting before 1987, on the radio, and some of his worst, most incendiary comments came from that time. Why?

Because policing the Fairness Doctrine was a fucking nightmare. It was hard enough on broadcast TV. On radio, it was not even a thing.

The reason Rush was able to obtain a huge audience was that people had stopped paying attention to AM radio. You know, video killing the radio star and all that. AM radio was ancient; it had poor sound quality; and after FM it had become a medium of niche programs appealing mostly harmlessly to niche audiences.

Ironically, this is an area where elites most dropped the ball because of their elitism, and it rarely gets mentioned. Who was the core Rush Limbaugh audience in the early years? Delivery truck drivers. Repairmen working in shops. Retail clerks -- especially in small businesses or family owned-and-operated. They didn't tune into hear Rush specifically, not at the time. They tuned in because they listened to radio at work.

Educated elites didn't listen to radio at work. They worked in offices, not trucks. So they thought Rush was nothing but a curiosity, a relic, a guy who was making a few bones broadcasting on zombie stations located in underdeveloped areas like the Missouri bootheel. I saw the danger because I worked in a couple of repair shops and saw the reaction. The minute people started calling into Rush saying, "ditto," I realized we had a problem.
 
Note also that Fox News ran a program for years that was perfectly Fairness Doctrine compliant. It was called Hannity and Colmes.

The Fairness Doctrine did not protect us. It would not protect us. Its repeal was not the problem.
 
Here we go...

It is telling that a structural critique of elite consensus gets interpreted as a personal attack. I never said anything about you selling out, and I did not invoke a secret cabal. I described a broad ideological framework shared by political, corporate, and media elites across party lines. If that reads to you as an insult, maybe that says more about how personally you identify with the system than anything about my argument.
You wrote this:

"On the Democratic side, the emergence of the “abundance agenda” reflects a parallel attempt to reshape elite consensus around techno-optimism, deregulated building, and innovation, while still avoiding a full reckoning with neoliberalism’s failures.

Both of these currents show that elites know the old model is broken, but they’re trying to ensure whatever replaces it still works for them."

If you don't understand how that's a personal attack on those who think the abundance agenda is a good idea, then what should I say? You are calling me an elite, and you're suggesting that my views are a function of being an elite and needing to ensure that the system works for me. That's the problem with leftists. Your default assumption is that all disagreement with you -- despite the fact that the Left has failed over and over again, far more than "neoliberalism" ever did or could -- is explained by suspicious motives is toxic.

I use these examples because they are accessible to people on a message board. You really think that I can't answer your "structural" critiques. Really? How often do I go into an intellectual gun fight with a stalk of broccoli? I don't spout what I don't know. It's that nobody here wants to rehash Moynihan v. SDS or Sartre v. Aron. Or go through an exhaustive discussion of Foucault's theories of power, which I guarantee I can speak to far more effectively than you.
 
It includes acceptance of the global capitalist system, supporting globalization, financialization, and multinational corporations as the engines of growth.
What is financialization?
 
Back
Top