American Politics Discussion Thread

[DaveV]

... except the time shown doesn't match what's requested.

[Bobchillingworth]

Well, the 10 has passed the 11


It's a fairly clever visual gag.

[DaveV]

Trump (on tape!) in February: The Coronavirus is super-dangerous, but I won't tell anyone because it might cause panic hurt my reelection chances.

Which would be a lot more convincing if he weren't trying as hard as he can right now to cause panic about an out of control mob coming to burn down your town and kill all its cops. Or, in 2018, about a huge caravan of so-called refugees who were really a bunch of terrorists and disease carriers. Strange how the latter story completely disappeared right after the election.

[Amicalola]

Or, in 2018, about a huge caravan of so-called refugees who were really a bunch of terrorists and disease carriers. Strange how the latter story completely disappeared right after the election.

This always felt particularly strange to me, from a non-American perspective. Like, even if it had actually been a problem, do Trump voters simply think the caravan disappeared after the election? Did they just forget about it, somehow, after frothing for weeks? I honestly don't understand.

[darrelljs]

Coverage continued in some media outlets; it essentially fizzled in Mexico, partially due to pressure from the US government. Wikipedia has a good entry on it if you are genuinely curious.

It's so hard these days for a Republican and a Democrat to have a meaningful conversation, because they live in alternate realities. Media outlets have become weaponized in support of partisan politics. Left leaning outlets (e.g. CNN) only cover stories that support the narrative that Trump is a megalomaniac wannabe dictator that hates minorities. Right wing outlets (e.g. Fox) only cover stories that support the narrative that liberals are socialists bent on destroying hard working white middle Americans. To get a 360 view of affairs you have to suffer through both types, but it's easier and more comforting to indulge confirmation bias.

Perhaps the Walter Cronkite golden age of journalism I yearn for never existed, but what we have today sucks total ass.

Darrell

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Perhaps the Walter Cronkite golden age of journalism I yearn for never existed, but what we have today sucks total ass.

Don't be so skeptical, the media today is fundamentally different because of massive self-censorship and the Telecommunications act of 1996. Opposition to the Iraq War was largely self-suppressed by major news outlets.

[DaveV]

it's easier and more comforting to indulge confirmation bias.

Which is really disturbing when it's the US President who's doing the indulging. Based on numerous inside reports, Trump spends the bulk of his time either golfing, campaigning (which has been continuous; there's nothing Trump finds more validating than having a large crowd shower their approval on him), phoning his friends, or watching Fox and OANN ( ). Trump spends hours every day watching TV, hoping to experience the little tingle he gets every time he's name-dropped on TV. Note that there is no time left to read his briefing papers; Trump has no interest in a balanced overview of any situation, especially one that might imply he made a mistake. After nearly four years, the man not only remains deeply unqualified for his position, but has shown little interest in actually doing what he was elected to do. As someone once put it, Trump is much more interested in cosplaying the President than in actually being one.

[Cyneheard]

Perhaps the Walter Cronkite golden age of journalism I yearn for never existed, but what we have today sucks total ass.

Don't be so skeptical, the media today is fundamentally different because of massive self-censorship and the Telecommunications act of 1996. Opposition to the Iraq War was largely self-suppressed by major news outlets.

Television news is useful for creating news (and responding to live events) but not so useful for understanding the bigger picture. Iraq was the latter, and to some extent so is the Trump presidency.

Legacy newspaper media still has its role, but it's struggling because the economics aren't supporting it very well. The New York Times has a case of "both sides must suck equally", Wall Street Journal has always had its thumb on the scale, so that mostly leaves the Post as the big national paper.

So what does that leave? The Internet. The question is - who is going to find good information on the Internet? That requires work, since you have to find good sources you trust. While there is a difference between someone with a clear perspective but is acting in good faith and someone who is NOT acting in good faith, it's not always obvious.

[Cornflakes]

Coverage continued in some media outlets; it essentially fizzled in Mexico, partially due to pressure from the US government.  Wikipedia has a good entry on it if you are genuinely curious.

It's so hard these days for a Republican and a Democrat to have a meaningful conversation, because they live in alternate realities.  Media outlets have become weaponized in support of partisan politics.  Left leaning outlets (e.g. CNN) only cover stories that support the narrative that Trump is a megalomaniac wannabe dictator that hates minorities.  Right wing outlets (e.g. Fox) only cover stories that support the narrative that liberals are socialists bent on destroying hard working white middle Americans.  To get a 360 view of affairs you have to suffer through both types, but it's easier and more comforting to indulge confirmation bias.

Perhaps the Walter Cronkite golden age of journalism I yearn for never existed, but what we have today sucks total ass.

Darrell

I think you really hit on the heart of the issue with the media outlets only supporting a narrative. It is so bad in fact, that when I hear a "bombshell" negative-trump news story from [insert any left leaning outlet], I've come to expect the real truth to somewhere on the spectrum from:
A) neutral nothing-really-happened non-story
B) Trump actually acted positively
C) Replace the name "Trump" with ["Joe Biden" or another prominent democrat] but leave the rest of the bombshell negative story as-is. Yes, many of the bombshell stories regarding Trump are indeed fake news and Joe Biden or another prominent democrat actually did the what Trump is claimed to have done

We can start with this:

Trump (on tape!) in February: The Coronavirus is super-dangerous, but I won't tell anyone because it might cause panic hurt my reelection chances.

Which would be a lot more convincing if he weren't trying as hard as he can right now to cause panic about an out of control mob coming to burn down your town and kill all its cops. Or, in 2018, about a huge caravan of so-called refugees who were really a bunch of terrorists and disease carriers. Strange how the latter story completely disappeared right after the election.

Pick your media outlet of choice and provide a link to the story. Or if you prefer, provide some links to other bombshell negative-trump stories. Let's do some investigative journalism ourselves and see what really happened.

[darrelljs]

Legacy newspaper media still has its role, but it's struggling because the economics aren't supporting it very well. The New York Times has a case of "both sides must suck equally", Wall Street Journal has always had its thumb on the scale, so that mostly leaves the Post as the big national paper.

My go to right now is The Economist, it's not a daily but seems to have maintained both journalistic standards and some semblance of impartiality.

So what does that leave? The Internet.

This may be the scariest thing ever posted on The Internet .

Darrell