2020 Elections

[Cheerful]

The media should not be long-format Twitter.

Yep.  What the U.S. needs desperately is journalism.  The Wikipedia definition is somewhat good but incomplete: "Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence. The word journalism applies to the occupation, as well as citizen journalists who gather and publish information based on facts and supported with proof or evidence."  What's missing here is "absent the opinion of the writer" or some such.  "Straight news" articles these days are often embedded with opinions of reporters/news orgs.

I don't consider CNN, FoxNews, or MSNBC news orgs.  They are mostly opinion orgs.

Any journalism profs on this board?  Any hope?  NewsNation, Newsy, and Shep Smith on CNBC seem like cause for some optimism.

[mamselle]

Ummm.....those articles where the writer goes to eye-scratchingly painful lengths to research and point out dissimulations, misinformation, and outright lies have been useful to me...and many I've seen were from CNN.

Given deadlines, level of detail, and the amount of smelly stuff to be dug through and discarded, they may well be imperfect, but in comparison with Germany in the 1930s, I've thought they were doing rather well.

A chacun son gout...

M.

[lightning]

One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.

The thing that has to be acknowledged is the twisted symbiosis with the media. (And I'm not just talking Fox news.) After the inauguration, there will no doubt still be a fringe that won't accept the result. As there always has been a fringe that doesn't trust any government. However, they will still get media coverage, because the more fringy they are the more eyeballs they will get. And that's what drives the media.

If the media would focus more on what is important, even when it isn't flashy or controversial, rather than on what is  shocking, the world would be a better place. (Sometimes what is important is shocking, but that's the exception rather than the rule.)

The media should not be long-format Twitter.

I take back part of what I said. In my and our focus on "the media," I fell for your deflection and overlooked one thing that should be overtly acknowledged, regardless of how/why "the media" covers it, and that's the fringe that you mention. Yes, "the media" loves the fringe because it's good for "the media" bottom line. What I failed to re-articulate over your hackneyed deflection to "the media" conversation is that 126 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 17+ state attorney generals consciously and unconscionably went along with the fringe.  These are not the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies that the media likes to spotlight for the views. These are mostly elected officials, presumably with some modicum of education, wisdom, and moral standing, and who hold real power. That's the scary part--they hold real power. And, I'm glad "the media" has covered it, along with all the other shenanigans. Although at one time, they could define their standing differently from the so called fringe, the Republicans can no longer point to the fringe and cry about how the media spends too much attention on the fringe. No, the Republicans, in putting their 126 names on the list, are no different from the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies on the fringe. They own it. The Republicans are the fringe.

[marshwiggle]

One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.

The thing that has to be acknowledged is the twisted symbiosis with the media. (And I'm not just talking Fox news.) After the inauguration, there will no doubt still be a fringe that won't accept the result. As there always has been a fringe that doesn't trust any government. However, they will still get media coverage, because the more fringy they are the more eyeballs they will get. And that's what drives the media.

If the media would focus more on what is important, even when it isn't flashy or controversial, rather than on what is  shocking, the world would be a better place. (Sometimes what is important is shocking, but that's the exception rather than the rule.)

The media should not be long-format Twitter.

I take back part of what I said. In my and our focus on "the media," I fell for your deflection and overlooked one thing that should be overtly acknowledged, regardless of how/why "the media" covers it, and that's the fringe that you mention. Yes, "the media" loves the fringe because it's good for "the media" bottom line. What I failed to re-articulate over your hackneyed deflection to "the media" conversation is that 126 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 17+ state attorney generals consciously and unconscionably went along with the fringe.  These are not the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies that the media likes to spotlight for the views. These are mostly elected officials, presumably with some modicum of education, wisdom, and moral standing, and who hold real power. That's the scary part--they hold real power. And, I'm glad "the media" has covered it, along with all the other shenanigans. Although at one time, they could define their standing differently from the so called fringe, the Republicans can no longer point to the fringe and cry about how the media spends too much attention on the fringe. No, the Republicans, in putting their 126 names on the list, are no different from the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies on the fringe. They own it. The Republicans are the fringe.

Was there ever any real chance they would somehow succeed? Unless there was a legitimate possibility that they would, then all that focusing on them does is give them even more attention. People will get their idea of the seriousness of a threat by how much coverage it gets, because they aren't legal scholars who can determine whether any of these challenges have any merit.

There are lots of important challenges the new administration will face after the inauguration, and there would be much more value in informing people about some of those issues than in showing the soap opera of denial. But informing is a lot more work than shocking, so it takes a back seat.

In what way is knowing about "the list" and who is on it going to have real effects on the lives of people watching? Getting outraged doesn't materially improve anyone's life; in fact, it will make them more anxious and stressed.

[dismalist]

The media are not at fault for anything. The media wish to make money. To make money, they appeal to us.

[Sun_Worshiper]

With McConnell's public* and private** statements today, it seems that the Republican establishment is finally turning the page on Trump. 

* https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics/mitch-mcconnell-congratulates-joe-biden/index.html
** https://apnews.com/article/mitch-mcconnell-congratulates-joe-biden-2ed09a34fbbc3342fe45c733ee0dd725

[Parasaurolophus]

Anyone else have the stomach to watch Biden's (leaked) Zoom call with civil rights leaders?

[marshwiggle]

The media are not at fault for anything. The media wish to make money. To make money, they appeal to us.

I'd rather not have all "news" basically become tabloid-style. Just like other corporations, making a profit is not the same as making the highest profit margin by whatever means possible.

And the more people, from anywhere on the political spectrum, think the news is biased, the less they will tune in, which will make the business fail. News organizations that are trusted by the most people will have the best chance of survival. Getting trusted by the most people will require them to come across as unbiased either way.

[dismalist]

Getting trusted by the most people will require them to come across as unbiased either way.

Apparently not.

[mamselle]

Still at it:

   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-throws-grenades-high-stakes-georgia-senate-runoffs-final-stretch-n1252672

Syphillitic megalomania?

M.

[spork]

One would think that the Republican shenanigans would be done, after today's electoral college vote, but no. The more they lose, the more insane the shenanigans become.

The thing that has to be acknowledged is the twisted symbiosis with the media. (And I'm not just talking Fox news.) After the inauguration, there will no doubt still be a fringe that won't accept the result. As there always has been a fringe that doesn't trust any government. However, they will still get media coverage, because the more fringy they are the more eyeballs they will get. And that's what drives the media.

If the media would focus more on what is important, even when it isn't flashy or controversial, rather than on what is  shocking, the world would be a better place. (Sometimes what is important is shocking, but that's the exception rather than the rule.)

The media should not be long-format Twitter.

I take back part of what I said. In my and our focus on "the media," I fell for your deflection and overlooked one thing that should be overtly acknowledged, regardless of how/why "the media" covers it, and that's the fringe that you mention. Yes, "the media" loves the fringe because it's good for "the media" bottom line. What I failed to re-articulate over your hackneyed deflection to "the media" conversation is that 126 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 17+ state attorney generals consciously and unconscionably went along with the fringe.  These are not the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies that the media likes to spotlight for the views. These are mostly elected officials, presumably with some modicum of education, wisdom, and moral standing, and who hold real power. That's the scary part--they hold real power. And, I'm glad "the media" has covered it, along with all the other shenanigans. Although at one time, they could define their standing differently from the so called fringe, the Republicans can no longer point to the fringe and cry about how the media spends too much attention on the fringe. No, the Republicans, in putting their 126 names on the list, are no different from the naive ignorant backwoods racist crazies on the fringe. They own it. The Republicans are the fringe.

Eisenhower allowed McCarthy to run rampant to preserve a GOP majority in Congress, and he let Hoover feed McCarthy unsubstantiated accusations on Hoover's perceived enemies. Power corrupts. Rarely is this adequately investigated by journalists and communicated to a public that, for the most part, doesn't care.

I haven't seen the media, except for an occasional brief blurb in places like The Wall Street Journal, discuss Trump vetoing the NDAA because it contained changes to bank secrecy and anti-money laundering laws. Trump's ties to money laundering operations haven't been covered recently. Instead, the media simply parroted Trump's statement that he vetoed the bill because it didn't make social media companies liable for content -- an attempt at distraction. For the most part the media still just presents Trump as a clown. It's good for ratings. NPR hosts and reporters laugh during stories about Trump, and the stories are about Trump's destruction of democratic institutions of government. It's all fun and games until you're the person whose spouse is deported or who dies of SARS-CoV-2.

[mahagonny]

Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

But whatabout the whatabouts of whatabout!

Let's be serious here, there is no evidence that a good number of Democrats believe that setting fire to police cruisers is ok - certainly not Democratic leadership. (If you have some evidence feel free to share it.) On the other hand, you literally have a large segment of GOP leadership trying to overthrow a free and fair election, a small segment calling for martial law, and much of the Republican electorate believing downright stupid conspiracy theories.

[lightning]

Spork is right, but I can add that the democrats have become the fringe too. As a good number of them believe things like 'silence is violence' but looting and setting fire to police cruisers is not.

No, Mahagonny. The democrats have not "become the fringe too." The democratic party won the presidency with a moderate democrat, with a centrist message that won the votes in the middle, and just enough of a tip of the hat to the so-called fringe democrats, to come out to vote against Trump (instead of staying on the sidelines like they did in 2016).

The Republican party (or should I say the Trump party), on the other hand, IS the fringe, and their army of armed "patriot" militias are showing up with their tools of violence and intimidation (Proud Boys, etc.), to support the Republican party's efforts to subvert the election results and keep the party of Trump in power.

Stop mitigating the atrocious behavior of Republicans by contextualizing the murder of African-Americans by police, as an equivalency to Republican attempts to undermine democracy. You're too smart to argue, by using weak equivalencies . . . . or maybe not.

[marshwiggle]

The democratic party won the presidency with a moderate democrat, with a centrist message that won the votes in the middle, and just enough of a tip of the hat to the so-called fringe democrats, to come out to vote against Trump (instead of staying on the sidelines like they did in 2016).

It may make more sense to separate economic and social dimensions of politics here. The mainstream democrats tend to be economically conservative while being socially liberal (such as tech billionaires), whereas the "progressives" are both socially and economically liberal. Among the republicans there are social and economic conservatives, (particularly among evangelicals), but there are also economically conservative and socially liberal libertarians.*

Getting elected requires a party to get some combination of economic and social <whatever> voters, which includes a chunk that differ on the economic and social dimensions.


*There are also voters who are socially conservative and economically liberal, which I have mostly seen in middle-of-the-road religious groups, but they are, in my experience, less common than the other 3 quadrants. This is because they have to be both self-disciplined and self-sacrificing,  which is not popular.