politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Came here to say this. There is some excellent, probing journalism out there. The problem is, it's not very profitable
and in there lies the rub, everybody's gotta fill their own ricebowl
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.
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.
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.
NPR isn't perfect but damn if it isn't one of the best we've got. NPR, Reuters, Al Jezeera sometimes, that's all I got for being dependable. Washington Post can be surprisingly neutral considering who they're owned by. Who do you pay attention to?
I refuse to give NPR any more of my time anymore. I used to have a very long commute so for many years my radio was locked in on them all the time (the fact that music stations are shit these days doesn't help either). Not any more. I'll look at their stories if they come across my news feed these days, but they lost their credibility with how they handled Trump with kid gloves and they lost even more credibility with how they tried to sink Bidens agenda more recently.
Our news media gives one free pass after another to Republicans and holds Democrats to impossibly high standards.
In terms of what I listen to now, it's a random assortment of what comes through my feed. I really haven't had a good "home" for news in a while and I don't like that, but reading multiple sources is probably the best move regardless since you can see how various outlets spin the same story. I'd love to find some slick app that compiled many outlets so I could read them on my tablet that filtered out the noise but I've yet to find that solution.
I get it, I agree that NPR got weird for a bit there.
Check out ground news. It's designed to clearly and fairly show bias in news coverage and lets you compare multiple sources side by side. Their free level is not very good imo but the cheapest subscription adds a good amount of utility and the higher tiers even include media ownership breakdowns so you can see whose money is behind which coverage.
They also have optional emails like a "burst your bubble" newsletter that showcases blindspots for left right and center.
My one gripe is that they consider too many sources "left" when they are mostly just aligned with a center-progressive demographic, but that's a minor quibble for me.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Probably right, it's unfortunate the people that ran her campaign were idiots and she listened to them.
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
It takes a special brand of caustic to lose an election to Donald Trump but fuck if the Dems didn’t find someone with just that.
Her televised discussion with those millennials was an exercise in tone deafness (and cringe). Of course she was the better candidate but like it or not: politics is a popularity contest and although he is deplorable to any sane person Trump is loved by inbred Nazis. Hillary is just not likeable. By anyone.
Pray for the day when these circumstances change and the most qualified candidate is always the clear winner but that day is not today.
That day won't be come if Dem it's keep casting protest votes against something. They claim a 3rd party vote is a protest vote, but a vote cast in favor of something is not the protest. Voting against something is.
It wasn't just an issue of being unlikeable, we had seen time and time again where the rhetoric conflicts with the action. In the words of James Baldwin 'I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do.'
"journalists". That's awful generous of you
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...
Co-conspirators. Is that better?
Folks got to pay for news to get good news. If it's all just ad supported you're going to get click bait that just generates clicks for ad views. Google destroyed good print news. The combination of consumer attitudes changing in the digital age to being less willing or expecting print journalism to be free, and Google monopolizing of display ad space really messed things up. Also, the shift from nightly news being mostly an operational cost or non revenue generating program to 24/7 cable news didn't help the tv side of things.
On the contrary: "If it bleeds, it leads." All too often, news presents the world as much scarier than it actually is, and in ways that you can't do anything about.
Today I almost clicked on the article posted on Lemmy about a gang-rape and murder in India. What the fuck would I benefit from reading that? I don't have any control over what people do in India! I live in California. I can't punish those criminals; I can't protect the next person they would have targeted. I can't vote the Modi-fascists out of office.
The only thing that me reading about that could have done is fuck up my day, and send ad revenue to the site hosting the article. It would be me rewarding someone for making my life worse, at no benefit to anyone.
People regularly pay for "news" whose only possible effect on them is to make them into worse people: more scared, more angry, more hateful.
You're missing the forest for the trees, mate. Ad supported doesn't necessarily mean bad journalism. There might always be a conflict of interest there, but that model worked decently fine for many,any decades.
You need to learn about the Fairness Doctrine.
This was a broadcast rule that essentially forced news outlets in the US to air both sides of a story in as unbiased as a way as reasonably possible. If you know your history, you won't be surprised that the Fairness Doctrine was thrown out in the 80s under the Reagan administration.
People complain about Citizens United being an awful decision that was greatly impacted the way government works, and I agree, but the end of the Fairness Doctrine was also a huge step in the fascist future that Republicans have been pushing toward for decades now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,that%20fairly%20reflected%20differing%20viewpoints.
Unfortunately, partisan propaganda and outright disinformation is free, while factual and informative news tends to be behind paywalls
This has a way of segregating people that don't have discretionary money to subscribe to news services into epistemic bubbles, and the bubble dwellers' votes count for just as much as everybody else's. In a democracy, you really do need voters in general to be informed and unfortunately, not everybody in the media/politics sphere wants everybody to be informed and some folks in there just want people indoctrinated into their way of thinking.