Media (Traditional and Social Media) Coverage of Politics & Elections

[Mulberry Heel]

the media bears so, so much of the responsibility for allowing that movement to become what it is.

they've abdicated their responsibilities over and over and over again in reporting truthfully and forcefully on trump/magaland.

the bo'siding and sane washing are mind-boggling and infuriating.

It is infuriating, but not mind-boggling. Over the past few years more and more of our news media has been bought up by wealthy billionaires. The LA Times is owned by a buddy of Elon Musk and he singlehandedly overruled his editors and prevented them from running an editorial endorsing Harris, and he's also moved the paper to the right. Politico is owned by a right-wing German publisher who in 2020 asked all of his editors to pray for Trump's reelection. CNN was bought a couple of years ago by a billionaire who is buddies with the Murdochs and has moved the network to the right and cancelled many of the network's programs that were considered liberal. And the Washington Post's CEO and publisher is a right-winger who worked for the Murdochs for years managing right-wing papers in Britain, and who bluntly said today that not only is the WaPo not endorsing anyone this year, but they will never endorse a candidate again in a presidential election, thus overturning decades of the WaPo endorsing presidential candidates.

And of course the granddaddy and flagship of all US legacy media, the NY Times, has become a gutless organization that relentlessly bosides everything. The ugly truth for liberals is that most of our so-called news media has been bought by right-wing plutocrats, or is being managed by right-wingers. Just look at what's happened to Twitter under Musk's control. The list of liberal or even centrist media is getting awfully thin.

 

[JCTarheel82]

It is infuriating, but not mind-boggling. Over the past few years more and more of our news media has been bought up by wealthy billionaires. The LA Times is owned by a buddy of Elon Musk and he singlehandedly overruled his editors and prevented them from running an editorial endorsing Harris, and he's also moved the paper to the right. Politico is owned by a right-wing German publisher who in 2020 asked all of his editors to pray for Trump's reelection. CNN was bought a couple of years ago by a billionaire who is buddies with the Murdochs and has moved the network to the right and cancelled many of the network's programs that were considered liberal. And the Washington Post's CEO and publisher is a right-winger who worked for the Murdochs for years managing right-wing papers in Britain, and who bluntly said today that not only is the WaPo not endorsing anyone this year, but they will never endorse a candidate again in a presidential election, thus overturning decades of the WaPo endorsing presidential candidates.

And of course the granddaddy and flagship of all US legacy media, the NY Times, has become a gutless organization that relentlessly bosides everything. The ugly truth for liberals is that most of our so-called news media has been bought by right-wing plutocrats, or is being managed by right-wingers. Just look at what's happened to Twitter under Musk's control. The list of liberal or even centrist media is getting awfully thin.

The right built a parallel media ecosystem based on disinformation and propaganda and are now commandeering legacy media. Scary times for truth and democracy.

 

[Croatoan]

The right built a parallel media ecosystem based on disinformation and propaganda and are now commandeering legacy media. Scary times for truth and democracy.

I’d argue that the right built, and continues to build, a parallel media ecosystem BECAUSE of the disinformation and propaganda pushed by the legacy media. Of course, that doesn’t mean they (the right) are free from those very same type of sins themselves, but…here we are. I certainly agree with your second sentence.

 

[lawtig02]

I’d argue that the right built, and continues to build, a parallel media ecosystem BECAUSE of the disinformation and propaganda pushed by the legacy media. Of course, that doesn’t mean they (the right) are free from those very same type of sins themselves, but…here we are. I certainly agree with your second sentence.

I’d argue the right and the left used to hold the media in similar regard, until conservative influencers starting in the late 1970s began pushing an alternate view of reality that focused on things like wealth somehow “trickling down” from the rich to the poor, abortion being the equivalent of murder, and urban areas being more dangerous than rural areas. The legacy media did not change. It continued to report reality. But because conservatives began to believe in the alternate, false reality, they also began to believe the legacy media was biased and not trustworthy. So right wing media outlets emerged to exploit the alternate reality conservatives had embraced. And we’re now at Stage 10 of that evolution.

 

[finesse]

I’d argue the right and the left used to hold the media in similar regard, until conservative influencers starting in the late 1970s began pushing an alternate view of reality that focused on things like wealth somehow “trickling down” from the rich to the poor, abortion being the equivalent of murder, and urban areas being more dangerous than rural areas. The legacy media did not change. It continued to report reality. But because conservatives began to believe in the alternate, false reality, they also began to believe the media was biased and not trustworthy. So right wing media outlets emerged to exploit the alternate reality conservatives had embraced. And were now at Stage 10 of that evolution.

Actually started in the 50s,fwiw.

 

[lawtig02]

Actually started in the 50s,fwiw.

Fair enough. The 1970s were kind of like Voldemort in the Goblet of Fire, but you’re right he existed in less obvious forms well before that.

 

[finesse]

The Birth of Conservative Media as We Know It

It all started in a small apartment in Washington, D.C.

newrepublic.com

Fwiw, Human Events started in 1944.



Dedication to “the reporting of facts that other newspapers overlook” thus inspired the founders of Human Events. But while touting this fact-based approach, they also promoted a distinct point of view. By the early 1960s, Human Events arrived at this articulation of its mission: “In reporting the news, Human Events is objective; it aims for accurate representation of the facts. But it is not impartial. It looks at events through the eyes that are biased in favor of limited constitutional government, local self-government, private enterprise, and individual freedom.” Distinguishing between objectivity and impartiality, the editors of Human Events created a space where “bias” was an appropriate journalistic value.

Biggest change is their previous regard for the "facts".

 

[Centerpiece]

It is infuriating, but not mind-boggling. Over the past few years more and more of our news media has been bought up by wealthy billionaires. The LA Times is owned by a buddy of Elon Musk and he singlehandedly overruled his editors and prevented them from running an editorial endorsing Harris, and he's also moved the paper to the right. Politico is owned by a right-wing German publisher who in 2020 asked all of his editors to pray for Trump's reelection. CNN was bought a couple of years ago by a billionaire who is buddies with the Murdochs and has moved the network to the right and cancelled many of the network's programs that were considered liberal. And the Washington Post's CEO and publisher is a right-winger who worked for the Murdochs for years managing right-wing papers in Britain, and who bluntly said today that not only is the WaPo not endorsing anyone this year, but they will never endorse a candidate again in a presidential election, thus overturning decades of the WaPo endorsing presidential candidates.

And of course the granddaddy and flagship of all US legacy media, the NY Times, has become a gutless organization that relentlessly bosides everything. The ugly truth for liberals is that most of our so-called news media has been bought by right-wing plutocrats, or is being managed by right-wingers. Just look at what's happened to Twitter under Musk's control. The list of liberal or even centrist media is getting awfully thin.

Spot on. And all of these will willingly step into an authoritarian regime and be its “State-run media”. Some of these publication lost reporters and editors already because they don’t like the way their now former bosses are moving… they resigned or quit. But the vacuum will be filled by lackey “journalists”.

All of the decades of Americans wondering “how could the German people have allowed that to happen under their watch?” Now have their answer.

 

[finesse]

Not exactly. The Germans truly were in bad shape. We're close to being in the best shape we've ever been in. That makes us a lot more stupid than them. But you're generally on point.

 

[OGtruthhurts]

Can someone explain bosiding to me? Some of us are not controlled party zombies and understand there are a lot of gray area issues involved in partisan politics. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[finesse]

Can someone explain bosiding to me? Some of us are not controlled party zombies and understand there are a lot of gray area issues involved in partisan politics. Why is that a bad thing?

It's not always bad but when something like Robert Byrd's Klan membership in the 40s which he described as the biggest mistake in his life is used to justify racism by Republicans in the current generation, it becomes a non sequitur. That's especially true in cases where the comparison is broadly out of balance.

Imo, bad behavior is bad behavior and should be corrected . Otoh, I also feel like there is an implicit statute of limitations where sins of a decade or a generation ago don't weigh as heavily if time, knowledge and maturity has made a correction in someone's behavior. Agnostic that I am, I think most religions would believe that. I also think that they wouldn't find those previous actions to be justification for someone else's bad behavior.

This might not be satisfactory or believable to you but that's how I look at it.

 

[Croatoan]

I’d argue the right and the left used to hold the media in similar regard, until conservative influencers starting in the late 1970s began pushing an alternate view of reality that focused on things like wealth somehow “trickling down” from the rich to the poor, abortion being the equivalent of murder, and urban areas being more dangerous than rural areas. The legacy media did not change. It continued to report reality. But because conservatives began to believe in the alternate, false reality, they also began to believe the legacy media was biased and not trustworthy. So right wing media outlets emerged to exploit the alternate reality conservatives had embraced. And we’re now at Stage 10 of that evolution.

That’s certainly one slant.

I’m not so sure that I’d agree the right and the left used to hold the media in similar regard., especially post-Watergate. However, I do agree that there was a more-concerted conservative effort starting in the late 1970’s to begin pushing an alternate political and social view that focused on things like wealth somehow “trickling down” from the rich to the poor, abortion being the equivalent of murder, and urban areas being more dangerous than rural areas. The obvious counter to that would be to focus on the equally-concerted and, more successful (?) push for bigger government, increased dependence on government social programs, and the denegration of the traditional family structure over that same time period. I do think the legacy news media has moved to take on more left-leaning positions since the late 00’s though. The reaction to Trump exascerbated that issue, almost to an extreme. There seems to be strides taken by a few outlets to move back to at least allowing more conservative voices to be heard lately. I think we’re seeing some of the anger at this from the left (expressed by some on this board) now and would also think this is mostly being done for financial reasons, not changing values. Regardless, their time of importance is almost done. We can’t dismiss half the country as living in an alternate reality no matter how we feel about their views on these matters though, right?

 

[finesse]

That’s certainly one slant.

I’m not so sure that I’d agree the right and the left used to hold the media in similar regard., especially post-Watergate. However, I do agree that there was a more-concerted conservative effort starting in the late 1970’s to begin pushing an alternate political and social view that focused on things like wealth somehow “trickling down” from the rich to the poor, abortion being the equivalent of murder, and urban areas being more dangerous than rural areas. The obvious counter to that would be to focus on the equally-concerted and, more successful (?) push for bigger government, increased dependence on government social programs, and the denegration of the traditional family structure over that same time period. I do think the legacy news media has moved to take on more left-leaning positions since the late 00’s though. The reaction to Trump exascerbated that issue, almost to an extreme. There seems to be strides taken by a few outlets to move back to at least allowing more conservative voices to be heard lately. I think we’re seeing some of the anger at this from the left (expressed by some on this board) now and would also think this is mostly being done for financial reasons, not changing values. Regardless, their time of importance is almost done. We can’t dismiss half the country as living in an alternate reality no matter how we feel about their views on these matters though, right?

Well, they are living in an alternate reality. About that many value superstition over science and that really has no place in modern society. That's especially true when they try to force their morals, as suspect as they are, on others. They really don't have a special place in the universe nor do they have some guy in the sky to forgive them for being assholes to other people, no matter what they might believe.

Even more droll, is that they are even wrong according the the book they claim they believe in.

 

[4thgenheel]

It is infuriating, but not mind-boggling. Over the past few years more and more of our news media has been bought up by wealthy billionaires. The LA Times is owned by a buddy of Elon Musk and he singlehandedly overruled his editors and prevented them from running an editorial endorsing Harris, and he's also moved the paper to the right. Politico is owned by a right-wing German publisher who in 2020 asked all of his editors to pray for Trump's reelection. CNN was bought a couple of years ago by a billionaire who is buddies with the Murdochs and has moved the network to the right and cancelled many of the network's programs that were considered liberal. And the Washington Post's CEO and publisher is a right-winger who worked for the Murdochs for years managing right-wing papers in Britain, and who bluntly said today that not only is the WaPo not endorsing anyone this year, but they will never endorse a candidate again in a presidential election, thus overturning decades of the WaPo endorsing presidential candidates.

And of course the granddaddy and flagship of all US legacy media, the NY Times, has become a gutless organization that relentlessly bosides everything. The ugly truth for liberals is that most of our so-called news media has been bought by right-wing plutocrats, or is being managed by right-wingers. Just look at what's happened to Twitter under Musk's control. The list of liberal or even centrist media is getting awfully thin.

agreed on all accounts although i'm gonna stick with mind-boggling, too.....

mind-bog·gling
adjective
informal

1. overwhelming; startling.

 

[korgguy1971]

The double standard with how Trump and Harris are covered and/or handled in general - which overwhelmingly favors Trump despite the constant cries about the librul media - is fucking insane. Charlemagne was correct to call it out, and as I'm sure you all know, it's far from just Anderson Cooper/CNN.

 

[Croatoan]

Well, they are living in an alternate reality. About that many value superstition over science and that really has no place in modern society. That's especially true when they try to force their morals, as suspect as they are, on others. They really don't have a special place in the universe nor do they have some guy in the sky to forgive them for being assholes to other people, no matter what they might believe.

Even more droll, is that they are even wrong according the the book they claim they believe in.

Finesse, you aren’t my favorite poaster ever but I respect you, your voice, and your contributions to these boards over the years. I will also say that I recognize that there are some people out there that are exactly as you describe. For me, however, there are way too many “theys” in your poast, too many generalizations, to make this worth a response. I could throw out some tired ole stuff about liberal-types, but where does that get us? Maybe someone else will get into it with you on the subject. Too many leaves and not enough time today Hope you have a nice Saturday and that your family is doing well. Go Heels.

 

[nycfan]

 

[Centerpiece]

Not exactly. The Germans truly were in bad shape. We're close to being in the best shape we've ever been in. That makes us a lot more stupid than them. But you're generally on point.

Agree. And if you follow me at all on these boards, you've noticed I've been literally calling all of humanity rather dim bulbs - especially us Americans. We are some dumb-ass m'f'ers.

 

[dukeman92]

Just look at what's happened to Twitter under Musk's control. The list of liberal or even centrist media is getting awfully thin.

I know it's been said multiple times, but Twitter has devolved into a cesspool. I keep it for one reason, fantasy football. I follow a ton of beat reporters and injury specialists for that reason and that reason alone. I've lost more than a thousand followers due to MAGA.

 

[Centerpiece]

Not exactly. The Germans truly were in bad shape. We're close to being in the best shape we've ever been in. That makes us a lot more stupid than them. But you're generally on point.

And I'll add that most Germans believed they were truly in a bad place - as you say - and wanted, needed to believe their strongman could pull them out. By contrast here in the U.S. only half the populace believes the country is currently in dire straights (much different than Germany of 1933). Also, the social media and A.I. of today (although it can exacerbate things going in the wrong direction) can be a plus to combat the nefarious dealings of a modern day strongman in the U.S. The only thing that could "save" a strong man here would be if he were able to get ALL of the online platforms to bow down to him - like in China. But I would need somebody to prove to me that could happen here, and now, in the U.S.. There are too many online "cats let out of the bag" for some entity to rein them all in at this point.

The 1/2 of the Americans who still have some sense would make up "the resistance" and the like-minded democracies of the World would flood the inter-webs with propaganda going AGAINST Her Fuhrer - just like the Russian, Chinese and Iranian bad-actors have been doing the past 10 years FOR Hitler Jr. now.