773

Will Bunch expresses what I've been thinking since Trump was elected. American democracy is under attack from within. The fascists who yearn for an authoritarian government in the media are promoting it, and the media who supposedly don't support it fail to recognize it. They are busy trying to follow the political playbook of the 20th century.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 178 points 1 year ago

Spare me the outrage from the press, when the press is the entity that helped create this mess.

All this could have been avoided some 6 years ago if these clowns in the press did their goddamn jobs. Trump had a history of corruption going back decades. Between sexual assault cases, crooked business dealings,connections to the Russians as well as connections to the mafia, and everything in between. Rarely any of that came to light or was taken as seriously as it should have been. It was one free pass after another. They gave him endless air time because they loved those sweet, sweet ad-dollars. They considered him a joke candidate and never dove deep into his past finances or connections.

...And then it happened. He was actually elected. And that's when it became serious.

Fuck every last one of these journalists who just sat back, let him slide, and just let it happened. Now they have the gall to talk about authoritarian-this, and fascism-that.

[-] wahming 114 points 1 year ago

The press isn't monolithic. This is one journalist stating their opinion and analysis of what the rest of the industry needs to focus on.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 53 points 1 year ago

Came here to say this. There is some excellent, probing journalism out there. The problem is, it's not very profitable

[-] downpunxx@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

and in there lies the rub, everybody's gotta fill their own ricebowl

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

It is far more monolithic than people realize. Folks think that only the Fox News if the world were being overly generous to Trump when he was just a candidate. The reality is that all mass market news outlets were.

I was a loooong time listener of NPR, a news outlets that most would probably consider as neutral or even left of center as you'll get from US mass media. And I totally lost respect for them hearing them cover Trump as a candidate. Even now, I can just about hear Steve Inskeep chuckling after a Trump speech and simply never taking him as a serious candidate. This was someone who was running for the highest office in the land. He would have access to our nuclear codes. And these fucken reporters, who I had previously held in high regard, were just laughing at some of the insane antics that Donald was pulling. They were letting this shit slide while they would have roasted any other candidate if they had said the same thing.

And it's not just NPR but any mass media news outlets acted the same way. That's where the majority of Americans get their news and they were all doing the same things.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

NPR = "Nice Polite Republicans".

Among the left, it's always been a running joke that outlets like PBS (Petroleum Broadcast System) and NPR are somehow agents of liberalism.

I seem to recall NPR's own ombudsman said they rely too much on corporate/conservative sources. They are not nearly as "liberal" as the unhinged right wing declares they are.

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

This all goes back to Reagan. He's the one who really popularized the term "liberal media". In labeling the media supposedly liberal (which it really wasn't), it made that same media shift to the right because they naively didn't want to be thought of as being biased. Well you keep doing that for some 50 years and even mass media outlets are right of center these days, and that doesn't even include the really right wing outlets like Fox.

Then there is also the whole issue of media consolidation and corporate media. So you have fewer media outlets and those outlets are richer and more controlled by corporate interests. Corporations by default will lean to the right. So they will tend to naturally paint stories with a pro business, anti worker lean.

It's all a big mess these days, so when I see these stories when people deep within the industry bemoan Trump, I can only help but consider these people as part of the problem.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

It isn't, I totally agree, but there are far fewer independently owned news outlets and far fewer owners than ever. And that is part of the reason we are here.

But, yeah, this is one of a few journalists reporting on what is actually happening with regard to Republican authoritarianism.

[-] HelloHotel@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you can control who gets a job based on their background, (example: "no socialists, gays, or jews. off the record policy") you dont even need to use invasive mind control techniques. Just have your writing teams sniff their own farts.

People like murdock control huge swaths of news outlets. The corprate office issues propaganda scripts that individuals are forced to put their name on (example, by reading it aloud).

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Yep. They did next to nothing to really vet him in any way. And so many had a vendetta against the Clintons that they just could not help but try to get their digs in on Hillary and Bill as much as possible, too.

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Yup. Republicans had been building a case against Hillary for some 2 decades. So much so, in fact, that even seasoned Democrats were falling for those attacks against her were ingrained into our pop culture.

Such a shame because she would have made a perfect president. She was a pitbull that was willing to call Republicans on their shit.

[-] astraeus@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago

The same seasoned Democrats that stacked the primaries in her favor? The 2016 election was the first time I had a real voice in an election and it felt like it was just vacuumed away. The candidate who seemed the most appropriate and the most qualified got swept under the rug in favor of the shit-throwers. She wasn’t perfect, she was a better terrible than Trump.

In 2020 the Democrats scrambled for a viable candidate and somehow Joe Biden was the best they could give us, and it was an absolute gamble. His victory in the 2020 election was dangerously overstated and the danger of a repeat of 2016 in 2024 was ignored.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Bernie Sanders lost the primary by 3 million votes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I was convinced she'd be a neoliberal and would make grand bargains with the GOP like Bill did. Those grand bargains included "welfare reforms" like kicking grandmas out of public housing when their grandkids would deal drugs in their project (like grandmas have the power to control their grown-ass grandchildren). The impacts of Clinton's actions reached FAR beyond his presidency - I was fighting such evictions at Legal Aid during the second term of Bush Jr., evictions that were the result of Clinton's bargain with the devil.

Though you're right, most of the right's anti-Bill Clinton bumper stickers during his 2 terms were actually shots at Hillary Clinton.

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

I'd bring back the Bill Clinton days in a heartbeat.

ALL politics is about compromise. Anyone that thinks anything can get accomplished in Washington without compromise doesn't understand how our government works. Bill made the right choices the majority of the time and our country and the economy was booming because of it.

[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Compromises that make grandmas homeless are bad compromises. Clinton got away with it because nobody gives a shit about the projects, poor people don't vote, and because black folk have been saying the system is rigged for far longer than literally anyone else. D's don't gain credibility with their ostensible base by stabbing them in the back.

[-] Odd_so_Star_so_Odd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Probably right, it's unfortunate the people that ran her campaign were idiots and she listened to them.

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It was Hillary Clinton that elevated trump as a pied piper, the media discovered an advertising and viewer gold mine. Had her hubris not gotten involved he may have never become president

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Fuck every last one of these journalists who just sat back

"journalists". That's awful generous of you

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Stenographers?

I remember Colbert's session at the WH Correspondents Dinner and how the "liberal media" kept saying no one found it funny, it bombed, etc...not realizing that it was indeed funny to those not in the room. But making the "liberal media" the butt of the joke in some hard and hilarious truth-telling was more than they could bear, apparently, even if Colbert is part of the same media empire...

As excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president's side, and the vice president's side.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished.

Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Co-conspirators. Is that better?

load more comments (12 replies)
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
773 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
1457 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS