Fox News cracked the formula that extreme partisanship would lead to higher revenue. And it worked, and now almost all news networks have a partisan slant. People don’t want to hear the news, they want to hear their thoughts being validated by the news.
Utter nonsense. Journalists have *ALWAYS* been like that. And of course, state media as in Russia and China (including their plants in social media) are far worse.
Everybody know Thomas Jefferson wrote that if he had to choose between a government and no newspapers and newspapers but no government, he'd choose the latter. However, 20 years later he wrote this:
"It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."
George Orwell, "Homage to Catalonia": "The fat Russian agent was cornering all the foreign refugees in turn and explaining plausibly that this whole affair was an Anarchist plot. I watched him with some interest, for it was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies—unless one counts journalists."
I'm sure Dasha Burns has learned to never do it again anyway. She'll be lucky to make it to any Christmas parties this year.
There's been carrying the water for the correct side since the invention of writing. It wasn't in HS I learned that Shakespeare was just the most eloquent genius patronage could buy. I had to learn that from reading, of all things, a mystery novel examining the slandering of Richard III.
We're in the currently modern world but human nature doesn't change and there's nothing more to life than power and resources and who has 'em and who doles 'em out as patronage.
While there will always and forever be a disparity between how we see ourselves and how others see us, what we think we are vs what we really are, what we think of this thing called "the world" and what the world really is (aka the map v the territory), the internet age and its virtual avatars, ie the fact that we all have an "online self" along w the man in the mirror, has made what is usually a chasm into a grand canyon.
This affects us all to a certain extent, esp the young and impressionable, but as for adults that are supposedly competent, intelligent & professional, there is no class of human with a more distorted and grandiose sense of self than the modern Twitter-fueled "journalist".
What they see in the mirror is a radical fighter for the rights of the Oppressed, a muckracking Che Guevara with a pure heart overflowing with love for the marginalized, a wise scribe who has climbed to the top of Mt Morality and knows best how to rearrange the world and everything and everyone in it.
What they really are is a class of entitled infants poisoned by narcissism and a child's lack of gratitude for all the people that came before them and made their plush lives possible, motivated by the pure spite and resentment of the kid who has been banished from the cool kids' table in the lunchroom, willing to do or say anything as long as it allows them to publicly destroy an enemy while preening as virtuous and clearly signalling loyalty to all the right tribal causes.
Of all the creepy creatures that ooze out of our devices every day and try to cover us with their slime, these supposed "journalists" are the arch liars and hypocrites and now that they've officially transformed into commissars they deserve to be treated as such: mocked, scorned, despised, until the day of their inevitable downfall, when the rest of us will get to point and laugh at them and their delusions.
If Fetterman were a republican, or, worse, a MAGA republican, he would have been systematically destroyed by msm and everyone in between. That fact is everything you will ever need to know about those people.
But because Fetterman is a democrat, he was systematically destroyed by FOX. And now that Murdoch has spoken, FOX and NYP are attempting to systematically destroy Trump.
I don’t watch TV. It would be best if no one did then maybe they would just go away. But alas we live in a world of addicts. No one reads anything anymore that is why they are all so susceptible to the propaganda they spew 24/7 on the tee vee. FOX included.
I read a lot. I watch a lot. That way I get a gist, sometimes, of why people say and do the things they do. Substack is part of it, but it’s another’s interpretation of reality. BTW, being retired allows me the time for all this.
The way I summarise legacy media's role in the US (it doesn't seem as bad here in France - and in Britain it still reflects mostly Conservative proprietor positions) is this.
Burns reporting on Fetterman/media reporting on the debate
I saw neither so I am not rending a judgement on what in fact happened.
Burns should have reported honestly about how well Feuerman was able to communicate using the championing although hopefully most of the reporting was about his substantiative positions.
Debate reporting should be about what each candidate said on the issuers and about the opponent’s views and positions. Reporters should not issue judgments about how “well” a candidate did. Partisans can do that. Even less should they speculate about how voters will respond to the positions and self-presentations of each candidate.
I think you misunderstand the purpose for debates. They are not merely about the issues; if they were, reading dueling position papers would be far more effective, as each would have time to carefully consider and present the best arguments.
A debate is inherently about how they look and how they perform as much as or more than it is about the issues. And not for no reason; a leader will be confronted with situations where they must think and act on their feet. A debate provides some window into their capabilities.
That said, I think the overall public considers debates a matter of dramatic entertainment not unlike a sporting event, which is why we see the reporting done very much like sports reporting.
I agree. But that still implies that the reporting be about what who said in response to what (The kicker missed the field goal or not.) Sports reporter do not speculate about who won or how the loss will be perceived by the spectators.
I don't think Bari Weiss is such a great example of this kind of victimization, in fact the last two times you mentioned her I had the feeling I had suddenly drifted into some kind of upside down world. She is, and always has been an attention seeking provocateur, and her exit from NYT was predictable. One is almost tempted to wonder if she may have half-heartedly planned it somewhere along the way. Given your previous posts, I'm having a little trouble understanding this sort of blind-spot you have for Weiss. I mean, you must know that she is exactly the kind of degraded "The Intercept-style" journalist you are arguing against - just with a little pseudo-edgy, Bill Maher flavor thrown in for effect.
Disagree vehemently. Bari's a personal friend and this characterization rings totally false. The outrage her name provokes in people has always baffled me. She's one of the friendliest people I know and her politics are moderate and inoffensive to 99% of people. I don't get the hate.
"She's one of the friendliest people I know and her politics are moderate and inoffensive to 99% of people"
I don't know what this means .. sounds like an ad for toothpaste. As for the hate, I don't follow twitter, but I can imagine it started when she lobbied to have one of her (Palestinian) professors at Columbia fired for having the wrong politics. Anyways, if being friendly is all it takes then what are we even talking about?
Pretty straightforward sentence, not sure why you have trouble comprehending it.
So you think she’s despicable because of something she did as an undergrad like a decade and a half ago? If that’s not cancel culture I don’t know what is.
By the way she didn’t try to get them “fired” and the things she called them out for were, in fact, contemptible. It wasn’t just having politics she disagreed with.
You know, I may be wrong but I don't think I said that .. anyways, I could go on, but I'm sure Glenn Greenwald could spell it all out better than I could.
What a shitty choice the parties left Pennsylvanians: a man who seemed to be having nearly crippling neurological issues resulting from a stroke, and a man who wasn't a Pennsylvanian buy who strategically and cynically chose to run in Pennsylvania, a narcissist TV personality without the charisma of a TV personality. His stated policy positions weren't as objectionable to me as some other Republican candidates', at least, but in no way did I feel like he had any interest in representing Pennsylvania's values and interests.
It's even worse than that. You can't help but think that Oz thought that his wealth and fame entitled him to the position. He didn't really want to serve. Elected office was for him a reward for being who he was and Pennsylvanians should be honored to have him. In that way, he is much like Trump or Clinton. On the other hand, Fetterman has never actually supported himself. He lived off his parents until well into his 40s and then he went into politics. He doesn't want to live in the real world. But his first foray into politics was being mayor of Braddock, for which he did nothing except use that position as a stepping stone. Braddock was no better off after he left than before he got there. But somehow he caught the attention of the power players in the Democrat Party. I suspect it really is his looks. He "looks" like an everyman, if an everyman is a neanderthal in hoodie (kind of tells you what the Democrats think of their voters, no?). But he also has no real interest in serving, as evidenced by his time as mayor of Braddock. Politics is just another way for him not to work and get a whole lot of attention (that's particularly true for his wife).
But the above problems are, unfortunately, nearly universal in the so-called leadership, no matter what letter comes after their names. No one really wants to serve or represent. These elected positions are sort of a shiny gold star you give to already accomplished people or a way for people who couldn't survive any occupation that demands results to be financially successful.
Fox News cracked the formula that extreme partisanship would lead to higher revenue. And it worked, and now almost all news networks have a partisan slant. People don’t want to hear the news, they want to hear their thoughts being validated by the news.
Utter nonsense. Journalists have *ALWAYS* been like that. And of course, state media as in Russia and China (including their plants in social media) are far worse.
Everybody know Thomas Jefferson wrote that if he had to choose between a government and no newspapers and newspapers but no government, he'd choose the latter. However, 20 years later he wrote this:
"It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."
George Orwell, "Homage to Catalonia": "The fat Russian agent was cornering all the foreign refugees in turn and explaining plausibly that this whole affair was an Anarchist plot. I watched him with some interest, for it was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies—unless one counts journalists."
I'm sure Dasha Burns has learned to never do it again anyway. She'll be lucky to make it to any Christmas parties this year.
There's been carrying the water for the correct side since the invention of writing. It wasn't in HS I learned that Shakespeare was just the most eloquent genius patronage could buy. I had to learn that from reading, of all things, a mystery novel examining the slandering of Richard III.
We're in the currently modern world but human nature doesn't change and there's nothing more to life than power and resources and who has 'em and who doles 'em out as patronage.
While there will always and forever be a disparity between how we see ourselves and how others see us, what we think we are vs what we really are, what we think of this thing called "the world" and what the world really is (aka the map v the territory), the internet age and its virtual avatars, ie the fact that we all have an "online self" along w the man in the mirror, has made what is usually a chasm into a grand canyon.
This affects us all to a certain extent, esp the young and impressionable, but as for adults that are supposedly competent, intelligent & professional, there is no class of human with a more distorted and grandiose sense of self than the modern Twitter-fueled "journalist".
What they see in the mirror is a radical fighter for the rights of the Oppressed, a muckracking Che Guevara with a pure heart overflowing with love for the marginalized, a wise scribe who has climbed to the top of Mt Morality and knows best how to rearrange the world and everything and everyone in it.
What they really are is a class of entitled infants poisoned by narcissism and a child's lack of gratitude for all the people that came before them and made their plush lives possible, motivated by the pure spite and resentment of the kid who has been banished from the cool kids' table in the lunchroom, willing to do or say anything as long as it allows them to publicly destroy an enemy while preening as virtuous and clearly signalling loyalty to all the right tribal causes.
Of all the creepy creatures that ooze out of our devices every day and try to cover us with their slime, these supposed "journalists" are the arch liars and hypocrites and now that they've officially transformed into commissars they deserve to be treated as such: mocked, scorned, despised, until the day of their inevitable downfall, when the rest of us will get to point and laugh at them and their delusions.
Very well put, except commissars were not mocked or laughed at. They were short in the back of the head. Just saying.
ha! yes i was just about to write that, but didn't want to get all eliminationist.
maybe they were mocked first then shot? ;)
If Fetterman were a republican, or, worse, a MAGA republican, he would have been systematically destroyed by msm and everyone in between. That fact is everything you will ever need to know about those people.
But because Fetterman is a democrat, he was systematically destroyed by FOX. And now that Murdoch has spoken, FOX and NYP are attempting to systematically destroy Trump.
I don’t watch TV. It would be best if no one did then maybe they would just go away. But alas we live in a world of addicts. No one reads anything anymore that is why they are all so susceptible to the propaganda they spew 24/7 on the tee vee. FOX included.
I read a lot. I watch a lot. That way I get a gist, sometimes, of why people say and do the things they do. Substack is part of it, but it’s another’s interpretation of reality. BTW, being retired allows me the time for all this.
Not a rhetorical question: how does this all end?
Yes, I’d love an answer to your question.
The way I summarise legacy media's role in the US (it doesn't seem as bad here in France - and in Britain it still reflects mostly Conservative proprietor positions) is this.
News manufacturing.
Burns reporting on Fetterman/media reporting on the debate
I saw neither so I am not rending a judgement on what in fact happened.
Burns should have reported honestly about how well Feuerman was able to communicate using the championing although hopefully most of the reporting was about his substantiative positions.
Debate reporting should be about what each candidate said on the issuers and about the opponent’s views and positions. Reporters should not issue judgments about how “well” a candidate did. Partisans can do that. Even less should they speculate about how voters will respond to the positions and self-presentations of each candidate.
I think you misunderstand the purpose for debates. They are not merely about the issues; if they were, reading dueling position papers would be far more effective, as each would have time to carefully consider and present the best arguments.
A debate is inherently about how they look and how they perform as much as or more than it is about the issues. And not for no reason; a leader will be confronted with situations where they must think and act on their feet. A debate provides some window into their capabilities.
That said, I think the overall public considers debates a matter of dramatic entertainment not unlike a sporting event, which is why we see the reporting done very much like sports reporting.
I agree. But that still implies that the reporting be about what who said in response to what (The kicker missed the field goal or not.) Sports reporter do not speculate about who won or how the loss will be perceived by the spectators.
I don't think Bari Weiss is such a great example of this kind of victimization, in fact the last two times you mentioned her I had the feeling I had suddenly drifted into some kind of upside down world. She is, and always has been an attention seeking provocateur, and her exit from NYT was predictable. One is almost tempted to wonder if she may have half-heartedly planned it somewhere along the way. Given your previous posts, I'm having a little trouble understanding this sort of blind-spot you have for Weiss. I mean, you must know that she is exactly the kind of degraded "The Intercept-style" journalist you are arguing against - just with a little pseudo-edgy, Bill Maher flavor thrown in for effect.
Disagree vehemently. Bari's a personal friend and this characterization rings totally false. The outrage her name provokes in people has always baffled me. She's one of the friendliest people I know and her politics are moderate and inoffensive to 99% of people. I don't get the hate.
"She's one of the friendliest people I know and her politics are moderate and inoffensive to 99% of people"
I don't know what this means .. sounds like an ad for toothpaste. As for the hate, I don't follow twitter, but I can imagine it started when she lobbied to have one of her (Palestinian) professors at Columbia fired for having the wrong politics. Anyways, if being friendly is all it takes then what are we even talking about?
Pretty straightforward sentence, not sure why you have trouble comprehending it.
So you think she’s despicable because of something she did as an undergrad like a decade and a half ago? If that’s not cancel culture I don’t know what is.
By the way she didn’t try to get them “fired” and the things she called them out for were, in fact, contemptible. It wasn’t just having politics she disagreed with.
"So you think she’s despicable .."
You know, I may be wrong but I don't think I said that .. anyways, I could go on, but I'm sure Glenn Greenwald could spell it all out better than I could.
Glenn is very friendly with her now, too.
So, I guess everything is ok then, sorry, my mistake.
“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell
Another great article.
And I doubt it as well, especially since the tactic worked. Fetterman won. (Not that Oz was any great shakes, but seriously?)
What a shitty choice the parties left Pennsylvanians: a man who seemed to be having nearly crippling neurological issues resulting from a stroke, and a man who wasn't a Pennsylvanian buy who strategically and cynically chose to run in Pennsylvania, a narcissist TV personality without the charisma of a TV personality. His stated policy positions weren't as objectionable to me as some other Republican candidates', at least, but in no way did I feel like he had any interest in representing Pennsylvania's values and interests.
It's even worse than that. You can't help but think that Oz thought that his wealth and fame entitled him to the position. He didn't really want to serve. Elected office was for him a reward for being who he was and Pennsylvanians should be honored to have him. In that way, he is much like Trump or Clinton. On the other hand, Fetterman has never actually supported himself. He lived off his parents until well into his 40s and then he went into politics. He doesn't want to live in the real world. But his first foray into politics was being mayor of Braddock, for which he did nothing except use that position as a stepping stone. Braddock was no better off after he left than before he got there. But somehow he caught the attention of the power players in the Democrat Party. I suspect it really is his looks. He "looks" like an everyman, if an everyman is a neanderthal in hoodie (kind of tells you what the Democrats think of their voters, no?). But he also has no real interest in serving, as evidenced by his time as mayor of Braddock. Politics is just another way for him not to work and get a whole lot of attention (that's particularly true for his wife).
But the above problems are, unfortunately, nearly universal in the so-called leadership, no matter what letter comes after their names. No one really wants to serve or represent. These elected positions are sort of a shiny gold star you give to already accomplished people or a way for people who couldn't survive any occupation that demands results to be financially successful.
It's rather a bleak picture.
very important, well composed critique.
Hear, hear. Well done, as usual.