I think the “normal” media was rickrolled and whipsawed by the RW progaganda movement, and Trump, whichever one one wants to say came first.
They can’t interview Rs without fielding a lot of not only untruth but malignant conspiracy. But Dems try to speak normal politics. How is that going to work out?
In any sane world the Rs would be banned from the air when they say these lies. But if they did it might include most prominent republicans. The attitude towards the Dems is just a function of that they feel threatened, by the right wing propaganda whirlwind that caught them not able to do their job well. They are scared of Rs. How much R talk is about 2nd amendment solutions, and vague threats now? They are playing footsie with violence.
There is a patriarchy problem when newsies don’t challenge white republican lies because they are intimidated, but then have to beat up on Dems who have normal political ups and downs, to prove they are “fair”. Bullshit. Dems are a convenient target.
Yes; this situation differs fundamentally from that of, say, forty years ago. Back then politicians of the right might have had bitter disagreements with both their counterparts on the left and with the press itself—but they did not feel free to hint at violent retaliation, or to employ racist arguments and appeals. And they did not feel free to lie openly.
Back then there was not only no right-wing media bubble available to gin up their followers to the hinted-at violence; there was also no alternative career structure. Today, a right-wing politician can lie outrageously and threaten violence and employ racism—and still expect to enjoy a lucrative post-politics career as a pundit or lobbyist or speaker or author or “fellow” at a right-wing think tank (and various combinations thereof).
In a sense, today’s centrist media has no leverage over these right-wing figures. It used to be that it mattered whether a political figure had a reputation for being reasonable and for being a person of one’s word.
Now it does not matter. Not for those on the right. They can lie freely and blatantly, and still feel confident that they will have a full career and social life in Right-Wing World.
Those on the left don’t have an entire alternate economy (in which being a liar and a racist and an instigator of violence is ‘fine’) to resort to in the event that they gain reputations for being, well, liars and racists and instigators of violence. The left has no foundations or think tanks or lobbying firms ready to hire known liars.
So the press has the leverage of being able to label left-wing figures as liars or racists or what have you. The press has that power over the left—power it simply does not have over the right.
I suspect that this fact engenders some unconscious contempt in some members of the mainstream press, for the left. And that contempt might contribute to the tendency to hold Democrats to standards the press won’t even try to apply to Republicans.
You only lash out at those you are allowed to lash out at.
It’s almost like we are deciding as a society that you are allowed to lash out at liberals, but not conservatives. To me that’s incipiently totalitarian.
Little kids must be so confused.
Pamela Brown with a R: “You are a tricky one. OK see you next time”
Pamela Brown with a Dem: “You expect me to buy that. I’m a journailst and I have a rep to protect.”
It’s not as though this is a brand-new perception, either; there have been people appalled by Chuck Todd’s velvet-glove handling of right-wing liars on Meet the Press for as long as Chodd has been host of MTP, for example.
But the side-by-side comparison your post references (about Pamela Brown) might have the best chance of getting through to people. It would be a very valuable project to compile a number of such instances.
Such a project would present inevitable difficulties. There wouldn’t be many exact comparisons, given that the interviews that would constitute the evidence would have taken place on differing days in differing national-news contexts—among other problems. (Though there might be some exceptions in which, perhaps, Pamela (or whoever) is interviewing one Dem and one Repub at the same time.)
When a Republican gets caught doing something naughty, and they actually run a story about it, and they have the blurb under the photograph about his position and party affiliation. he suddenly becomes a Democrat.
One time could marked up to incompetence. Twice is deliberate. They have done it…what…a dozen times?
In June 2020, Fox News’ website published digitally altered photographs of [Seattle]'s [Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone] to include a man armed with an assault rifle from earlier Seattle protests; also added to the photographs were smashed windows from other parts of Seattle. In a separate incident, the Fox News website ran articles about protests in Seattle, with accompanying photos of a burning city actually being from [Saint Paul, Minnesota], the previous month
A new website digitally alters photos on their website. Conscious and deliberate.
The reason that I have seen given, and I’m not sure how I feel about it, is that if they were to actually give them a hard time about their lies, then they wouldn’t be able to get them to come back on the show.
Understandable, I guess, but at the same time, it means that you are giving airtime to lies without confronting them, in service of being able to continue to give airtime to those lies.
If they can’t get Republicans to go on their shows, though, then they are accused of bias, of only having Democrats on.
I’d say it’s an unenviable position, but then, he does make the best part of a million a year, so there is a bit to envy there.
The Pam Brown one I saw in one half hour frame. I’m being a little hyperbolic but not by that much. She tried to pin the R down but just kind of gave up, and invited them back. Then she acted like she had to take out her frustration on a liberal.
This is so unhealthy. I have been saying for 5 years you need to litigate lies in the moment. We need to clip the bad unconscious behavior and run it on all tv outlets all the time.
I think law suits should be on order all around. Misinformation about elections and pandemics should be prosecuted.
We needed to start litigating, prosecuting, and publicly humiliating fascists. It’s the only language they understand.
But CNN should not be allowed to run R misinfo. When they do that they are the same as Fox news. Enemies of democracy will make that point and they will be right.
It’s long past time for a “general strike” where journos make a stand.
We need to encourage the public blow ups with R liars and not act like they are the end of the world. Blow ups like that on CNN and MSNBC would be the best thing for the US.
Agreed. Time for the kid gloves to come completely off. Fuck lieing R’s if they’re shown up and then find that their tail’s lodged too firmly between their legs to return. Any fallout resulting in less R’s getting i-viewed: good.
“Balance”? I-viewing as many R’s as D’s? No. Fuck that now. Different ground rules now - too many fucking liars now.
Imagine what the news would be if they took a big scalp to make a statement. about journalistic ethics. Send Kevin McCarthy packing and tell him exactly why. Let him try to leave the set. Just keep on explaining the lie, the truth, the reality that their network won’t be used for that anymore, and that he will be welcome back when he is not endangering lives or democracy.
If we don’t go to court, full press, over this shit we will be fucked.
It’s about the grift. All of the lies are pecuniary. So that has to be part of the attack. You tell Kebmac that he is supporting anti democracy grift by not saying things out loud, like that Biden won the election.
Admissions that Biden won, and other things, should be the first questions asked of Rs who appear on TV. If they flake out on that their mic should be cut and the show should proceed to report that they are anti democratic operatives, they are supporting endless political grifting by Rs of their gullible base, and then they should be escorted off the set.
All true. But as many (including our drad_dog, here) argue, business-as-usual makes no sense in a world in which elected Republicans are openly “fine” with abandoning democracy in favor of perpetual one-party rule.
Granted, it’s very difficult for our species to understand that something actually has changed. We seem hard-wired to the ‘same as it ever was’ and ‘it can’t happen here’ mindsets. So convincing broadcast journalists–who are presumably members of our species–that the same-old same-old pattern of behavior is actually dangerous, will be very difficult to do. They are NOT going to want to risk the ‘problem’ you cite (being accused of bias if they have no lying Republicans on their shows).
\
This is a wonderful idea in that it’s so specific and un-ambiguous.
It’s also hard for them to risk their jobs, and for the networks to risk losing their sponsors and viewers.
Cable news is not about informing the public, it’s simply infotainment. Some are worse than others, the network of honor in this thread obviously being the worst of the bunch(unless we are counting smaller, but unfortunately growing outlets like OAN). But MSNBC and CNN are no bastions of journalistic integrity either. They will show what the audience wants to see, fortunately, there is a large enough audience that wants to see things that make sense and comport to reality that they usually present the world as it actually is, rather than simply making up shit like Fox and their ilk does. But if that changes, and the left wants to see a fictional world presented in their choice of media, then that media will adapt to that as well.
It may even get ratings and give meat to the viewers who want to see the R’s taken down a peg. It would be great infotainment. But it would not change anything, it would not tell anyone anything they didn’t already know.
I’m wondering, though, if such a goal isn’t so much enlightening the viewers, but simply the prevention of spreading any further bs toxicity. Viewers like myself couldn’t be more on board with that - I’m sure I’m not the only who’d appreciate the void of such anti-democratic horseshit.
Yeah, it’s a conundrum that spans more than just journalism, but we are talking about journalism here.
Who is doing the lying here? Fox for sure, but I’m not accusing other outlets of outright lies. Not sure what you are getting at here.
More or less, yeah. Their audience wants to hear the truth, so that is what they provide them. Do you really think that MSNBC would continue to tell their audience stuff they didn’t want to hear? If no one tunes in to see what MSNBC has to say, then they will try saying something else.
Don’t think that this is all that complicated or controversial a position.
Right, in the moment, that is what their viewers want them to do. You don’t think that if their viewers called for something else, they would not serve that as well?
Try what? What exactly is it that you want me to try? I’m just explaining to you why they are not doing what it is that you want them to do.
Do you think that people would rather tune in and see Republicans lie, knowing that they are lying, and hoping that this time, they will be called on it? Or do you think that there will be as many who tune in to see a civil debate between two progressives?
I mean, you have said what you want them to do, they are not doing that thing. What is your explanation as to why they will not do that thing that you think that they should do?
That’s not what you said. You said that they would lie to the audience under a different political climate. That’s propaganda.
The network invites pols to lie on their air, so they are lying too. IOW they don’t fact check, they don’t challenge in any meaningful way and then they give up and invite them back. They use them to create a fake balance approved by conservatives, but no one else. Then a Dem comes on and the game is different because dems play by actual rules? Morally, ethically, in every way isn’t all of that shit that lying?
If you let it go, then how do you explain it to children?
4 years ago we could be confused. Even a year ago maybe. Remember how loopy it was to hear about some crazy trump statement? “Why would he do that? Crazy…”
But not now:
The lying, coming from all quarters of the right, is to keep the ball in the air for far right fundraising off of people who would respond to such lies. Keeping the ball in the air is about having a scenario that pleases the base, and keeps them donating. All republican pols are part of it in denying, avoiding, or elliding basic truths on camera. The scenario is antidemocratic and they are asking for equal time on US networks to promote it. And getting away with lying about it on camera.
The lies have given root to a legitimate antidemocratic threat. So to be casual and cynical about them is basically to be looking for far right answers.
I think that I have been consistent. The audience wants to hear the truth, so that’s what they tell them. If the audience wants to hear lies that comfort or frighten them, that is what they will tell them.
I said nothing about a political climate, that part you simply made up.
I’m not sure if you are arguing that MSNBC and co are being honest, or if you are agreeing with me that they are simply giving the audience what it wants at this point.
To be clear, what I have said is that if they follow your recommendation of calling out Republicans on their lies, those Republicans will no longer appear on their show. This will result in poorer ratings, as people aren’t tuning in to see a couple of progressives debate calmly on policy nuances, they are tuning in specifically to see these Republicans lie their asses off, and yell at the TV the things they wish the anchor would say.
You want the journalists to take a stand, but they are not going to. They make far too much money to risk losing their jobs over something as nebulous as journalistic integrity. Their networks make far too much off of stoking the anger at the opposing party to risk no longer having them come on the air for them to outrage their viewers.
My original statement that you seemed to take exception to was that MSNBC is no bastion of journalistic integrity, but then you seem to have go on to argue that MSNBC is morally, ethically, in every way lying. I really have no idea what point you are trying to make here is.
You mean in between foraging for food and dodging roving gangs of bandits in a post apocalyptic hellscape?
I have not been casual and cynical about them. I have simply explained to you why outlets like MSNBC, while not creating and disseminating lies as those like Fox do, will continue to have these guest on, and not do anything that will prevent them from returning.
My solution is that I don’t get my news from cable. They have every incentive to sensationalize every story, to increase viewer engagement, but very little to actually inform the public.
