PDA

View Full Version : Media Bias - 2016



troung
13 Nov 16,, 22:23
Did away with their comments section to avoid bad news lol


Print



Stunned by Trump, the New York Times does some soul-searching



The New York Times reports Donald Trump’s victory.
Michael Cieply
The Australian
12:00AM November 14, 2016


It’s been a moment for soul-searching, and to some extent repentance, at the New York Times. In much-discussed remarks to his own media columnist James Rutenberg, executive editor Dean Baquet offered a mea culpa for having missed the Donald Trump surprise, though he spoke less for the paper than for journalists in general. “We’ve got to do a much better job of being on the road, out in the country, talking to different kinds of people than we talk to — especially if you happen to be a New York-based news organisation — and remind ourselves that New York is not the real world,” Baquet said.

Public editor Liz Spayd cut closer to the bone, as she marvelled at an election-night flip from an 84 per cent Clinton-to-win assessment by the paper’s elaborate data operation, to a 95 per cent likelihood for Trump just a few hours later.

“As The Times begins a period of self-reflection, I hope its editors will think hard about the half of America the paper too seldom covers,” wrote Spayd.

She continued: “The red state America campaign coverage that rang the loudest in news coverage grew out of Trump rallies, and it often amplified the voices of the most hateful. One especially compelling video produced with footage collected over months on the campaign trail, captured the ugly vitriol like few others. That’s important coverage. But it and pieces like it drowned out the kind of agenda-free, deep narratives that could have taken Times readers deeper into the lives and values of the people who just elected the next president.”

This article was first published by Deadline Hollywood: http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-for-soul-searching-1201852490/

Having left the Times on July 25, after almost 12 years as an editor and correspondent, I missed the main heat of the presidential campaign; so I can’t add a word to those self-assessments of the recent political coverage. But these recent mornings-after leave me with some hard-earned thoughts about the Times’ drift from its moorings in the nation at-large.

For starters, it’s important to accept that the New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: “What are you hearing? What have you got?”

It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realise that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?”

The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.”

Having lived at one time or another in small-town Pennsylvania, some lower-rung Detroit suburbs, San Francisco, Oakland, Tulsa and, now, Santa Monica, I could only think, well, “Wow.” This is a very large country. I couldn’t even find a copy of the Times on a stop in college town Durham, N.C. To believe the national agenda was being set in a conference room in a headquarters on Manhattan’s Times Square required a very special mind-set indeed.

Inside the Times building, then and now, a great deal of the conversation is about the Times. In any institution, shop-talk is inevitable. But the navel-gazing seemed more intense at the Times, where too many journalists spent too much time decoding the paper’s ways, and too little figuring out the world at large. I listened to one longtime editor explain over lunch, for instance, that everybody on the paper has an invisible rank that might or might not coincide with his or her apparent place in the hierarchy. “You might think I’m a captain,” he said, based on his position at the time in a slightly backwater department. But, he continued, “I’m actually a colonel, because of my experiences and influence here.”

Fine. But what about the rest of the universe, that great wide world we were supposed to cover as journalists? As the years went by, it seemed to become more and more distant. One marker passed in the last decade, when the Wall Street Journal made a strategic move on the Times by strengthening its own New York City presence. The Times, by then firmly established as a national paper, went through a spasm of New York-centric thinking, mostly aimed at keeping the local print advertising base intact. Movie stories from far-away Los Angeles became harder to land; theatre reviews and elite arts coverage from New York flooded the culture pages.

In theory, the great digital transition should have made it easier for those of us in the bureaus to penetrate the Times’ psyche. But somehow, it didn’t work that way. As quickly as the editorial staff was trimmed in years of successive buyouts and layoffs, it re-grew, largely with a new wave of digital workers, high and low. Many of them were based inside the new Eighth Ave. headquarters; and most seemed to spend much of the time talking about that perennially favourite subject, the New York Times, or buzzing in a digital hive on dozens of Slack channels. It took ever longer to get stories posted or published. More, the paper seemed to lose interest in much that was happening on the ground even in Los Angeles — New York’s palm tree-lined sister city — never mind those half-forgotten spots in Pennsylvania or Oklahoma.

By last summer, a Los Angeles bureau that was built to house 13 had dwindled to four or five inhabitants. Visits by upper editors were rare or nonexistent. Los Angeles stories, especially about the entertainment business, were increasingly written by visiting New York staff members or freelance writers assigned by editors back in Manhattan. The drift was palpable — presumably not just here, but in that heavily populated heartland. And finally, as Spayd said, the paper seemed to lose touch with “the lives and the values of the people who just elected the next president.”

This article was first published by Deadline Hollywood http://deadline.com/
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/print/stunned-by-trump-the-new-york-times-does-some-soulsearching/news-story/60a799cd866d2bc2c9c497905c9de5e6


POLITICS

New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly


Published November 12, 2016
FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/12/new-york-times-publisher-vows-to-rededicate-itself-to-reporting-honestly.html

The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly.


Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support.

“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.

New York Post columnist and former Times reporter Michael Goodwin wrote, "because it [The Times] demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president."

Sulzberger's letter was released after the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls.

She compared stories that the paper ran about President-elect Donald Trump and Clinton, where the paper made Clinton look functional and organized and the Trump campaign discombobulated.

Spayd wrote, “Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”

She wrote about another reader who asked that the paper should focus on the electorate instead of “pushing the limited agenda of your editors.”

“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”

Sulzberger -- who insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly -- also sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.”

“But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias,” he said.

TopHatter
14 Nov 16,, 05:30
The Fourth Estate finally comes clean about their bias. Well, the NY Times anyway, and a few others (https://youtu.be/N3uHOHMTqJ8).

Others are more interested in finger-pointing (http://motto.time.com/4564294/rachel-maddow-third-party-candidates-election-2016/) and crying.

Parihaka
14 Nov 16,, 08:30
Ha, don't even get me started. I watched Morning Joe the day after and they were all so serious about their failings. For a minute it looked like they might get it, but within five minutes it transpired they weren't sorry that they'd been biased, they were sorry their bias has falsely misled democrats into being complacent.

troung
15 Nov 16,, 14:56
How Jon Stewart And ‘The Daily Show’ Elected Donald Trump

Jon Stewart attacked a show featuring political debate and strengthened the world where cultural elites mock those with whom they disagree. Take a bow.

By Mollie Hemingway
November 11, 2016


On October 15, 2004, the CNN program “Crossfire” altered its standard procedure of featuring two guests from different perspectives to have just one guest: Jon Stewart. The hosts welcomed him and encouraged him to promote his bestselling book “America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction.”

He immediately tore into the hosts for the way their show encouraged conflict. He complained that politicians can’t speak more freely because it’s impossible to survive a media environment where shows with titles like “Crossfire” or “Hardball” or “I’m Going To Kick Your Ass” will come after them. He said Crossfire in particular was “bad” and “hurting America.” “Stop. Stop hurting America” he said.

He called the hosts hacks and dismissed the idea that he was sucking up to John Kerry when he asked him questions such as “How are you holding up?” and “Are these attacks fair to you?”

Crossfire was canceled soon thereafter. Most people credit Stewart for not just killing the show, but bringing forth a new age of hyper-political, hyper-liberal late-night comedy. The news scene hasn’t changed altogether much since Stewart’s temper tantrum — except for featuring far less argument-sharpening debate and civil discourse than we had under “Crossfire” when Stewart went on his tear. “Crossfire” used to be one of the few places guests and hosts at least confronted conflicting views, including questions about perspectives and assumptions. It engaged the viewers, rather than ambushed or mocked them. It was also one of the few places on TV outside of Fox News where conservative views were given an audience.

The decline of civil discourse didn’t just happen on cable news shows, thanks to Stewart. He also helped kill it on late-night comedy shows as well.

Rise Of ‘The Daily Show’

Jon Stewart took over “The Daily Show” in 1999, and during the eight years of the Bush presidency the “fake news” show grew into a powerhouse. A 2007 Pew Research Center poll named Stewart as America’s fourth most admired news anchor. The show won dozens of Emmys and multiple Peabody awards. The New York Times called Stewart “the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow.”

In a gushing 2008 feature on the show in the New York Times (“Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?“) Michiko Kakutani called it “both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news.” She claimed the show was “animated not by partisanship but by a deep mistrust of all ideology. A sane voice in a noisy red-blue echo chamber.”


She didn’t list any examples of the show going after Democrats, instead praising it for its handling of the “cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush White House to augment its executive power.” She quoted Stewart saying he looked forward to the end of the Bush administration “as a comedian, as a person, as a citizen, as a mammal.” He said that Bush “conducted things” with “true viciousness and contempt.” As a sane voice would put it.

The show’s producers said they try to find stories that “make us angry in a whole new way.” Sometimes, to get the crowd properly whipped up, they had to slice and dice interviews to make targets seem like they had said the opposite of what they’d said. Sometimes Stewart just got angry at conservatives he’d invited on the show, particularly when they showed him up on his home court, as Clifford May, John Yoo, Jonah Goldberg, and various others did.

Kakutani wrote that Stewart used different comedic approaches, but that he was “often” reacting to something “so absurd” that he didn’t say anything, just stared blankly with an expression of dismay. Who can forget the pencil tapping and the goofy exasperation Stewart perfected?

Liberal Political Comedy Shows Expand

At the time Stewart went on his “Crossfire” attack, he was preparing “Colbert Report,” a new “fake news show” that would have even less viewpoint diversity than his “Daily Show.” Bill Maher had already launched “Real Time with Bill Maher” a year prior, a weekly, hour-long liberal comedy show on HBO. “The Colbert Report” satirized conservative pundit shows. It “eviscerated” and “destroyed” conservatives until 2014, at which point Colbert was given the coveted “Late Show,” replacing David Letterman.

Liberal “Saturday Night Live” alum Seth Meyers got his own NBC late-night show in 2014. John Oliver got his “Last Week Tonight” show on HBO that year, too. Liberal Trevor Noah was given “The Daily Show” slot last year. Larry Wilmore replaced Colbert, but his show was canceled in August. Samantha Bee, frustrated by the snub over at Comedy Central, launched her own political show on TBS. She and Oliver are the comedians most likely to be praised for “destroying” things.


Thanks to Stewart, late-night shows are liberal political shows, with very few exceptions, and nearly all of the hosts are alums of “The Daily Show” or otherwise inspired by his faux-news mockery.

Wilmore is enjoying success with his smart and funny new show “Insecure” on HBO. That’s good, since the comment the New York Times made of his canceled show was: “any one episode of ‘The Nightly Show’ could occasionally go for prolonged stretches without a single joke, something that intrigued some critics but failed to attract a broader audience.” He also bombed his White House Correspondents Dinner performance.

But I’m not sure that is something to be ashamed of. Let’s remember back to 2011, when Meyers hosted it and spent much of the evening mocking Donald Trump:



Obama and Meyers didn’t bomb. Far from it. But their cruel and dismissive mockery, which they both maintained through the bitter end of this election, doesn’t look so hot in retrospect.


Absurdity is at the heart of comedy. Mockery can be a way to show that something or someone defies logic or is otherwise absurd. At its best, and at the beginning, prior to 2004, “The Daily Show” excelled at using mockery as part of its repertoire of comedy tricks. But different views than the elites’ aren’t automatically absurd. When the majority of opposing arguments are treated as absurd, the schtick wears thin.

Unfortunately, mocking opponents and hyperbolic extremism are the only thing many comics can deploy. Early in “The Daily Show’s” run, Stewart invited conservatives on his show, debated them, and showed respect to a few of them. By the end, such treatment was rarer. The shows he spawned, particularly Bee’s and Oliver’s, are not about dialogue or debate. They lack the talent to engage opposing viewpoints even at the paltry level that Stewart did.

Seriously, Where’s the Humor?

The social justice televangelists dominating late night have trouble being funny. But even actual funny people have trouble being funny when politics get in the way. Stewart always put his clown nose on when confronted about his bias in handling the news. “I’m just a comedian!” he would cry. That worked better so long as he was being funny. As my better half wrote eight years ago in a piece headlined, “Memo to the Daily Show host: You’re a comedian!”


As George W. Bush’s presidency wound down, it became obvious that a comedy crisis was looming. As you might recall, there was much media thumb-sucking over what America’s gag writers would do when they no longer had the tongue-tied Texan to kick around. To make matters worse for the comedy scribes, Bush’s eventual replacement was a well-spoken, walking civil-rights triumph who largely shared the entertainment industry’s liberal politics.

In a New York Times article last year somewhat incredulously titled ‘Want Obama in a Punch Line? First, Find a Joke,’ the most influential political comedian in America admitted he was at a loss.

‘We’re carrion birds,’ Daily Show host Jon Stewart told the Times. ‘We’re sitting up there saying ‘Does he seem weak? Is he dehydrated yet? Let’s attack.’

He never found it. Neither did his writers. Simply nothing compared to the unrelenting attacks he made night after night during the Bush administration. It was a bit sad, particularly after “The Daily Show,” “Saturday Night Live,” and a host of other comedy venues were able to find the humor in the Bush presidency.

Sarah Silverman was widely praised for her attempt to bring Bernie Sanders supporters into the fold at the Democratic National Convention. She gave a speech that got interrupted by said supporters. She told them they were “being ridiculous.” Hillary supportive media loved it. They thought it was expertly delivered and perfectly deployed for the maximum effect. And maybe it was. But Dave Itzkoff had an article about it that included this interesting tidbit:


Was there anything you wanted to do in your speech that the Democratic National Committee wouldn’t allow?

At the very beginning, when Al said, ‘I’m Al Franken, and this past year I’ve been hashtag-I’m With Her,’ and I was going to say, ‘And I’m Sarah Silverman, and this past year I’ve been with the possibly agnostic Jew.’ Because you know the Right is going to use these emails to try to separate them. It’s what they want so badly. I just felt like, let the comedian defuse it and just address the elephant in the room. But they were like, no. And they are right. They’re right. But I get so indignant. At least I’m aware, and awareness brings change, so maybe I’ll be less obnoxious.

No! She was right! It was a funny line and having a Jewish comedienne make the joke would have worked well. But putting politics about comedy at the expense of both is a great way to describe the last eight years.

Earlier this year, late-night host Jimmy Fallon had Trump on his show for a pleasant chat. The Samantha Bee crowd flipped out. Her rant against Fallon treating Trump like a human being instead of mocking and disdaining him as the rest of the “comedy” crowd did on their late-night shows went viral. The elite publications such as the New York Times wrote up many stories on the matter. It was a big to-do.

As my colleague Mary Katharine Ham said, “In 2008 and ’12, liberal comedians couldn’t be funny because Obama was too good— impervious to ridicule. In 2016, they can’t be funny because Donald Trump is too bad— inappropriate to ridicule. Makes one wonder when they can be funny.”

Ross Douthat wrote presciently that Clinton had a Samantha Bee problem:


On late-night television, it was once understood that David Letterman was beloved by coastal liberals and Jay Leno more of a Middle American taste. But neither man was prone to delivering hectoring monologues in the style of the ‘Daily Show’ alums who now dominate late night. Fallon’s apolitical shtick increasingly makes him an outlier among his peers, many of whom are less comics than propagandists — liberal “explanatory journalists” with laugh lines.

Some of them have better lines than others, and some joke more or hector less. But to flip from Stephen Colbert’s winsome liberalism to Seth Meyers’s class-clown liberalism to Bee’s bluestocking feminism to John Oliver’s and Trevor Noah’s lectures on American benightedness is to enter an echo chamber from which the imagination struggles to escape.

Watch Bee “explain” why she’s “voting for Hillary G-dd-mn brilliant badass queen Beyonce Rodham” and tell me who in the world it’s designed to speak to other than political ideologues committed to the rightness of their cause but needing a desperate bolster.



Liberals very much like their comedians and their mocking. For others, the Bee sketch above is painful. It will make you question your belief that whatever else you want to say about them, Canadians are a funny people.

Even Attack Humor Requires Understanding

As late-night comics have dropped comedy for advocacy, critics have widely praised the move. Itzkoff was extremely defensive of Bee when she got mad at Fallon for treating Trump civilly. Alison Herman wrote at The Ringer of shows such as Bee’s:


There’s no line between the shows’ comedy and their advocacy; they’re one and the same. In a sense, they’ve moved past parodying the talking heads who have so warped our public discourse, in the vein of Stewart and Colbert, and fashioned themselves as an alternative to them. In September, Ross Douthat attempted to lay the blame for our polarized media landscape at Bee and Oliver’s feet. The truth is that things had fractured long before Bee and Oliver claimed their small pieces of the pie. They’ve simply given up on countering bad-faith partisanship with even-tempered civility and given a voice to a niche of their own.

In other words, the faux-civility of faux-news Stewart wasn’t even something he could pull off. Why bother pretending it was real? Herman said of Colbert, “He also managed to use his new format to do what a rigidly maintained persona could not: wear his anger on his sleeve, weaponizing the sincerity previously hidden behind his character’s mask.”

Of Meyers, she wrote, “[T]he big shift was in the openly appalled tone Meyers took toward the election, and in his willingness to branch out from an endless stream of coy one-liners into the openly prescriptive. (On Trump’s attempt to blame Hillary for birtherism: ‘You don’t get to peddle racist rhetoric for five years and decide when it’s over,’ he said. No punch line necessary.)”

Except that punch lines are necessary for comedy! Comedy is effective, even as political action, because it reveals truths, not force-feeds them. You lead the horse to water, you don’t shove his head into the lake and drown him. Effective comedians help people make connections in their own minds. People are persuaded when they are able to come to their own conclusion, not when they’re told by some shrill harpy or hectoring preacher that they’re a shitbag for voting for Trump.

Colbert hosted an election-night show on Showtime. According to Itzkoff’s must-read review, it sounds like he forgot to put the fun in funereal. For instance:


When [journalist Mark] Halperin said that Mr. Trump was ‘now on the doorstep of 270 electoral votes,’ Mr. Colbert answered: ‘Wow. That’s a horrifying prospect. I can’t put a happy face on that, and that’s my job.’ Mr. Halperin added, ‘Outside of the Civil War, World War II and including 9/11, this may be the most cataclysmic event the country’s ever seen.’ Mr. Colbert replied: ‘Um. Well. We’ll be right back after this message from Calgon.’ Few if any laughs were heard.

Laura Benanti bombed her Melania impression and apologized on Twitter later saying she knew she wasn’t funny and she wouldn’t have done the show if she’d anticipated the outcome. It got worse:


But a panel discussion that followed — with Mr. Colbert, Mr. Heilemann, the radio host Charlamagne tha God and the stand-up comedian Jena Friedman — felt thoroughly uncomfortable. ‘Anything that you want to tell us about how you’re feeling right now?’ Mr. Colbert asked Ms. Friedman. She answered, ‘I feel as if I’m about to give birth to a baby that’s already dead.’ Mr. Heilemann said he had nothing to offer that would make anyone feel better, noting that a New York Times forecast said it was 95 percent certain that Mr. Trump would win. ‘Wow, no one’s laughing,’ Ms. Friedman said. ‘This is so sad and scary.’ Mr. Colbert tried to be encouraging, saying: ‘It’s still America. It’s still a great country.’

Oh dear. It’s funny, but only because it’s so unintentional. His freakouts spilled out everywhere. You can see him ask “What the f*ck is happening?” and ask God how he could let this happen. You can also watch Meyers get emotional.

David Sims at The Atlantic loved that performance:

He was at once sharply funny and nakedly emotional. He made an effort to speak to Trump supporters without seeming entirely condescending. He acknowledged that in his position as a well-off white guy, his anguish at the electoral result was not the only perspective required on the night. He told jokes, of course, but with the awareness that jokes alone won’t be what his audience needs going forward.

Listen, it was the least bad thing I’ve seen from Meyers in ages. But do people have any idea how it comes off to those outside of a liberal echo chamber?

Trump Should Be Good For Comedy. Will He Be?

If comedians couldn’t be funny under Obama but could be funny under Bush, you’d think they’d love a President Trump. A young comic I really like tweeted this last month:


Bee, whose preachy moralism is predicated on cartoonish villains to slay, should know this is the best thing to happen in her life. But she also said that it’s hard to write jokes about Trump.

Clearly it is, for these women and for everyone else in comedy. To make jokes about things, you have to understand them a little bit. As these post-election freakouts confirm the reality that led to the election, these comedians don’t understand Trump or his voters at all. Until they do, the comedy will suffer.

Yes, there will long be an audience for elite crowds in urban centers to have their viewpoints affirmed. There’s plenty of money to be made in making cultural elites feel morally superior. You don’t have to understand Trump or his supporters to make money and continue having the right people tell you that you are awesome. In fact, the less you know about them and more you mischaracterize them and their views, the better it is for your niche domination.

At the same time, this echo chamber of smuggery isn’t helping Americans have shared cultural goals, much less an ability to work together to achieve them.

Jon Stewart is known for brutally deriding a show that featured people of differing views civilly discussing issues of the day. He got that show killed and significantly strengthened the world where cultural elites engaged in groupthink mockery of those with whom they disagree.

The results include a further erosion of civility, a decrease in Americans’ ability to understand each other and their concerns, and, of all things, President-elect Donald Trump. Should late-night political comedy continue in its path, who knows what the future holds.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingwayhttp://thefederalist.com/2016/11/11/how-jon-stewart-and-the-daily-show-elected-donald-trump/





For Stephen Colbert, a Very Uncomfortable Election Night
By DAVE ITZKOFFNOV. 9, 2016

Stephen Colbert and his guests were buffeted throughout his Showtime election-night special on Tuesday by the growing realization that Donald J. Trump would win the White House. Credit Scott Kowalchyk/Showtime

Presumably, when it was announced over the summer that Stephen Colbert was planning a special, live election-night broadcast on Showtime, the expectation was that he would riff on a once-in-a-lifetime political event, as momentous as anything he regularly satirizes as host of “The Late Show” on CBS.

There can be no disputing that the special, called partly “Stephen Colbert’s Live Election Night Democracy’s Series Finale,” was unique, but surely not in the way the politically liberal Mr. Colbert, his guests or his audience had expected. With pre-election polls suggesting a Hillary Clinton victory, Mr. Colbert and his guests were buffeted throughout the broadcast by the growing realization that Donald J. Trump had won the presidency. No entertainer could have managed this task easily; the night had a nervous energy that made it compelling, surreal and sometimes difficult to watch as it unfolded.

An Ominous Opening

Mr. Colbert’s special began with a dark animated sequence in which a seething cartoon version of Mr. Trump reflected angrily on his humiliation by President Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, and the cold, competitive attitude of his father, Fred Trump. Against the backdrop of a stormy night at Trump Tower, he contrives to run for the White House.

Mr. Colbert then took the stage of the Ed Sullivan Theater to deliver a monologue that tried to wink at the possibility of a Trump victory. “You don’t need to stand for me,” he said. “You don’t need to chant my name. America doesn’t have dictators — yet.” (The audience members, whose phones he said had been taken away for the live broadcast, tittered uneasily.) He said a swear word to show he could do it on cable television and announced Marco Rubio’s re-election to the United States Senate, with the help of a nearly nude male model who had the news written on an index card taped to his crotch.

Clouds on the Horizon

Mr. Colbert told his viewers that the presidential race was too close to call, and that news organizations were exercising caution in declaring the race over. (He then showed a famous image of Harry S. Truman holding up a copy of The Chicago Daily Tribune, digitally replacing the “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline with “Election Defeats America.”) From his desk, Mr. Colbert joked about some of Mr. Trump’s more far-fetched paths to victory, should he lose states like Florida or North Carolina, and his studio audience groaned when he told it that Mr. Trump had won Ohio. When Mr. Colbert introduced what looked like a live interview with Nate Silver, the editor in chief of the data journalism site fivethirtyeight.com, it turned out, somewhat portentously for anyone looking for real-time information, that Mr. Silver’s cameo had been taped several days earlier.

A Cold Dose of Reality

During a live conversation with Mr. Colbert, the journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin revealed that Mr. Trump had gone from underdog to front-runner, to the audible dismay of the audience. In addition to winning Ohio, the journalists said, Mr. Trump was also likely to win Florida and was leading in Wisconsin and Michigan. Mr. Colbert tried to inject some levity into the conversation — “Were there crazier moments than what’s happening right now? Or is this just the ultimate fruit of the crazy tree?” — but could not deny the new reality.

When Mr. Halperin said that Mr. Trump was “now on the doorstep of 270 electoral votes,” Mr. Colbert answered: “Wow. That’s a horrifying prospect. I can’t put a happy face on that, and that’s my job.” Mr. Halperin added, “Outside of the Civil War, World War II and including 9/11, this may be the most cataclysmic event the country’s ever seen.” Mr. Colbert replied: “Um. Well. We’ll be right back after this message from Calgon.” Few if any laughs were heard.

Guests, Unguarded

Laura Benanti, the Broadway star, reprised her “Late Show” role as Melania Trump, preening in a mock interview with Mr. Colbert. (“Melania, are you O.K.?” he asked. “You look like you might cry.” She said: “Oh, no, Stephen, that is impossible. I had my tear ducts removed years ago.”) On Wednesday, Ms. Benanti posted on Twitter, “People saying the Melania sketch wasn’t funny last night…I know. I’m so sorry. If I had anticipated this outcome I wouldn’t have done it.”

Jeff Goldblum, the pleasantly discombobulated actor, seemed more out of sorts than usual; he acknowledged that he was in shock at the election results, as Mr. Colbert piled on, somewhat maniacally, the names of more states Mr. Trump had won. Mr. Goldblum tried to be positive: “It’s the journey that counts, and how we collaborate with each other, to each other’s mutual benefit, that counts.” He then sang a portion of “It Goes Like It Goes,” from the film “Norma Rae”:

“So it goes like it goes, like the river flows
And time it rolls right on
And maybe what’s good gets a little bit better
And maybe what’s bad gets gone.”

But a panel discussion that followed — with Mr. Colbert, Mr. Heilemann, the radio host Charlamagne tha God and the stand-up comedian Jena Friedman — felt thoroughly uncomfortable. “Anything that you want to tell us about how you’re feeling right now?” Mr. Colbert asked Ms. Friedman. She answered, “I feel as if I’m about to give birth to a baby that’s already dead.” Mr. Heilemann said he had nothing to offer that would make anyone feel better, noting that a New York Times forecast said it was 95 percent certain that Mr. Trump would win. “Wow, no one’s laughing,” Ms. Friedman said. “This is so sad and scary.” Mr. Colbert tried to be encouraging, saying: “It’s still America. It’s still a great country.”

Colbert’s Final Pitch

Mr. Colbert showed a photograph of the middle school where he had voted that day. “Regardless of the outcome of the election, this is still a beautiful place and a beautiful thing that happened today,” he said. Then, returning to his desk, he gave a seemingly extemporaneous monologue, veering from gallows humor to sentimentality, full of awkward pauses and deep breaths. “How did our politics get so poisonous?” he asked. Maybe we overdosed, he suggested. “We drank too much of the poison.”

Noting that his own mother was born two days before women could vote in their first American presidential election, Mr. Colbert said: “I was thinking this was going to be the time that she got what she wanted. She told me, at age 92, right before she died, ‘Oh, I think I would vote for Hillary this time.’” He tossed out a few truisms that he said all Americans should agree with: “KitKats should be eaten in segments, not bitten into like a normal candy bar, you animal.” “There are too many Portlands.” Then Mr. Colbert closed by singing, “My Country ‘Tis of Thee.” It was difficult to tell whether his audience was singing along.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/arts/television/stephen-colbert-showtime-uncomfortable-election.html?_r=1

troung
15 Nov 16,, 22:04
Had Trump lost there would not be the pretense of "soul searching"


A message to red-state Trump voters: I want MY country back


Real beneficiaries of the Trump presidency will not be the working class.


By David Horsey

November 11, 2016, 5:00 AM



I’m sure thousands of bottles of Budweiser will be raised tonight in those white, working-class neighborhoods of the upper Midwest that put Donald Trump over the top in the electoral college. You folks should enjoy your moment and don’t trouble yourselves with the thought that plenty of celebratory champagne is being poured in corporate board rooms, country clubs and in the spacious mansions of hedge fund managers.
Thanks to your votes, Mr. and Mrs. White Working Class, all those rich people will soon get a massive tax cut and relief from the environmental regulations that have kept them from polluting your air and water and from the financial oversight that has restrained them from milking every last penny from their employees and the victims of their big-money schemes.


Yes, congratulations. At the same moment you elected a billionaire who claimed he would drain the special interest “swamp” in Washington, you kept in power insiders such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, one of the biggest snakes in the swamp, plus all the other Republicans in Congress who have fought to keep the mighty flow of corporate dollars streaming in.

You think you have struck a blow against the “elites” on the coasts who look down on “real Americans” in the heartland. You say you have been forgotten or misunderstood by the powers that be. That may be true. But I must say that those of you who act as if you are the only ones in the country who work hard, care for your families and love your country are pretty damn elitist, as well.

I look around at my friends and neighbors here on the West Coast and I see lots of patriotic people who put in long hours of labor to put food on the table and put their kids through school.

There is Keith, a guy with whom I recently got acquainted when we discovered our common affinity for good drinks, good ribs and good jazz. Keith is a muscular black man who would likely be subject to unfair and unfriendly scrutiny from the local sheriff if he showed up in a small Midwestern town, but forget the stereotype. Keith had a career in the Marines before taking a job managing security for Hollywood celebrities. In his free time, he works to help the homeless in downtown Los Angeles.

There is the Korean family that runs the laundry down the street from my apartment who never seem to take a vacation or even a day off. There are the Latino men I see laboring every day in the Southern California heat cutting lawns and repairing houses. There are the men of every race I pass by on my way to work who are hauling steel, handling jackhammers, driving trucks and raising girders as they build new subway lines and raise up towering skyscrapers.

And there are my colleagues in the newsroom, both the seasoned veterans of the news business and the charged-up millennials. There’s nothing elite about them, unless being able to spell and use proper grammar are now elite attributes. The men and women around me are working harder than ever for wages that are not rising in an industry threatened by rapid change. Sound familiar?


Most of us here do not live in Beverly Hills. We live in more modest places such as Pasadena, East Los Angeles, Inglewood and Long Beach. Of course, the working class here is a lot more brown than where you might live. They sweat just as hard, though, and put in long hours just like you — maybe longer, and maybe for less money. But you have not done them a favor by electing a guy who threatens to start a trade war based on an illusion. The illusion is that if America cuts itself off from the global market, all those manufacturing jobs your fathers once had will come flooding back. It won’t happen. The robots have taken over the assembly lines. But what a disruption in trade would do is shut down the West Coast ports and, according to expert estimates, kill more than 600,000 working-class jobs in California.

I know you didn’t think about that sort of effect when you cast your protest vote to Make America Great Again, but what exactly were you thinking? Whenever one of you was interviewed by a TV reporter all I heard was you parroting the vague generalities being spouted by your candidate: America doesn’t win anymore; we need a wall to keep out immigrants; political correctness sucks.


I didn’t hear any of you say you were happy with the longer droughts, bigger storms and more vicious wildfires that are devastating farms, ranches and rural communities. But your new president has promised to rip up the international treaty that might mitigate some of the extreme weather caused by climate change.

I didn’t hear any of you say you were tired of the peace and order created by the NATO alliance and would rather have a cozier relationship with the Russians. But you just elected a man who has denigrated NATO and has warm and fuzzy feelings about Vladimir Putin.

I did hear plenty of you say you hated big government, but is that because you are someone who got fined by the EPA because your industrial plant was poisoning a river? Or because you are a rancher who doesn’t want to pay grazing fees when you exploit publicly owned land? Or because you are a farmer who doesn’t want to admit that government price supports are what keep your business viable?

Does your hatred of government mean you voted for more pollution? With your vote, were you demanding that big banks be set free to run the economy into the ground? Were you eager for less consumer protection? Did you insist that more of the tax burden be put on average Americans and less of it on the super-rich? I hope those are the things you wanted because that is what you will get from a Republican Congress and a Republican president.

Do I sound angry? That is because I am. I’m mad because your misguided hissy fit is messing with the country I love. I am as much a patriot as you are. I choke up when I visit the Lincoln Memorial or the graves of the Kennedys. I love the flag and do not cringe from the Pledge of Allegiance. When I ride a horse across open country, I feel a link with all my ancestors — the first of whom arrived on the Maryland shore in the 1640s. Those family members who came before me slowly made their way West, generation after generation, until they finally found a home within sight of the Pacific. I am about as “real” an American as you can get.


But I am fed up with those of you who think there is only one way to be American. Some of the truest Americans I have met are among those whose ancestors came here in slave ships. Some of the Americans who give me the most hope are the children of parents who slipped across the border in search of a better life; young dreamers working hard for an education and a chance to contribute to our society. Some of the Americans I admire the most are like my friend Jack who left the narrow-mindedness of his home state and came West to Los Angeles, where he met and married the man he loved. America is great because it has room for all these people and more.

If, ultimately, the real reason you voted for Trump was because he promised to start shutting doors that have been opened for people who do not fit a narrow definition of American, you should understand you are in for a fight. It’s now my turn to say it: I want my country back.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-red-state-20161110-story.html

Journalist made a black friend...

troung
16 Nov 16,, 01:39
The real threat is fake news spread to stir the masses against their rightful leaders.

Here's a List of Fake, Misleading, and Satirical News Sites to Beware Of
Elizabeth King
By Elizabeth King

Elizabeth is a writer based in Chicago, IL. Follow her on Twitter @ekingc.
Nov 15, 2016
http://www.complex.com/life/2016/11/list-fake-misleading-satirical-news-sites

Pretty much everyone should (hopefully) be aware that The Onion is a satirical newspaper at this point. But what about other sites that seem legitimate, or even pretend to be legitimate, but are just cranking out fake news for clicks? To help guide internet users through a vast sea of fake or clickbait-y news sites, Merrimack College communication and media professor Melissa Zimdars has compiled a thorough list of fake, misleading, and satirical news sites. You can read the list in full here.
Related

13 Troubling Headlines From Breitbart, the Site Run By Trump's Top Adviser
White Nationalists Thrilled at Trump's Choice for Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor
Video: Here Is The Onion's First TED Talk Parody

In her introduction to the list, Zimdars writes, "Below is a list of fake, false, regularly misleading, and/or otherwise questionable “news” organizations, as well as organizations that regularly use clickbait-y headlines and descriptions, that are commonly shared on Facebook and other social media sites. Many of these websites rely on 'outrage' by using distorted headlines and de-contextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits."

The list includes far right sources such as Breitbart (whose former executive chairman, Stephen Bannon has been tapped by president elect Donald Trump to serve as his chief strategist), Infowars, and Red State, as well as intentionally satirical and comedic sites like The Onion, Reductress, and Cracked.

Here are some of the more frequent offenders you may have seen on your feed:

AnonNews.co
The Blaze
Breitbart
Crooks and Liars
Daily Wire
The Free Thought Project
Infowars
The Independent Journal Review
Occupy Democrats
Upworthy​

Noting that some might disagree with Zimdars' decision to include satirical sites on the list, she directs readers to the site Literally Unbelievable, which catalogs instances where readers react to satirical news or headlines, not realizing that the stories are fictional.

Zimdars also included media literacy tips to help readers determine quickly whether or not a site is the real deal, or if they're just trafficking in fake facts and outrage. Among other ideas, Zimdars says not to trust sites with the word "lo" (e.g. Newslo) in their names, and also to be wary of sites that end in ".com.co." Zimdars also advises readers to check multiple mainstream news sources to see if the same story and facts are published there, especially if a story makes a reader feel "really angry."

Publications including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and public radio station NPR are sources that Zimdars says she reads and trusts. Overall, Zimdars writes, "The best thing to do in our contemporary media environment is to read/watch/listen widely and often, and to be critical of the sources we share and engage with on social media." Read the full list of offender sites here.
WatchNow


\The Real Problem Behind the Fake News
Facebook is under fire for spreading falsehoods. But it’s getting away with a bigger lie.
By Will Oremus
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg during a town hall at Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California, in 2015.

Stephen Lam/Reuters

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election as president, Facebook has taken justifiable heat for its role in spreading misinformation and propaganda about the candidates. In particular, its news feed algorithm fueled a cottage industry of fake and intentionally misleading “news” that skewed heavily anti–Hillary Clinton and pro-Trump, according to a BuzzFeed analysis. These falsehoods attracted far more user engagement, on average, than true stories from the same outlets and drowned out earnest attempts by dedicated fact-checking sites such as Snopes to debunk them.
Will Oremus Will Oremus

Will Oremus is Slate’s senior technology writer. Email him at will.oremus@slate.com or follow him on Twitter.

This should not surprise anyone who understands how Facebook works. People tend to read, like, and share stories that appeal to their emotions and play to their existing beliefs. Without robust countervailing forces favoring credibility and accuracy, Facebook’s news feed algorithm is bound to spread lies, especially those that serve to bolster people’s preconceived biases. And these falsehoods are bound to influence people’s thinking.

And yet, in the days following the election, as criticisms of the company mounted, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg downplayed and denied the issue—a defensiveness that says even more about the company than the fake news scandal itself. Zuckerberg’s response points to a problem deeper than any bogus story, one that won’t be fixed by cutting some shady websites out of its advertising network. The problem is Facebook’s refusal to own up to its increasingly dominant role in the news media. It’s one that is unlikely to go away, even if the fake news does.

In a public interview last Thursday, Zuckerberg claimed that fake news on Facebook “surely had no impact” on the election and that to suggest otherwise was “a pretty crazy idea.” He accused Facebook critics of condescension for assuming that voters could be influenced by falsehoods and dismissed the notion that one side could have shared more fake news than the other. (There is evidence that it did.) As criticism intensified, he followed up with a personal Facebook post on Saturday, which struck a more conciliatory tone but still rejected the notion that fake news had an impact. He noted that Facebook already allows users to flag hoaxes and fake news and added that “we will continue to work on this to improve further.” At the same time, he cautioned that Facebook had to “proceed very carefully,” because “identifying the ‘truth’ is complicated.”

Yes, the truth is complicated, and Facebook should proceed carefully. But there is a growing sense, both inside and outside the company, that it may be proceeding rather too carefully, given its increasingly dominant role in the distribution of news online. And Zuckerberg’s denials seem to be fanning the flames.

Over the weekend, some highly placed, anonymous Facebook employees told the New York Times that they’ve been questioning the company’s role in the campaign. Five more anonymous employees told BuzzFeed on Monday that they and dozens of others within Facebook have formed a secret “task force” to advocate for stronger action against fake news. Meanwhile, a top Clinton strategist told Politico that Democratic leaders are looking for ways to get Facebook to address the problem. And Gizmodo reported, citing an anonymous source, that Facebook considered a tougher move against fake news this summer but held off out of fear of upsetting conservatives. Facebook disputed that, telling me it did no such thing and providing an alternative explanation for its tweaks to the news feed over the summer. (This puts Facebook in the ironic position of arguing that Gizmodo’s post is itself a false news story of sorts.)
Get Slate in your inbox.


Finally, on Monday night, the company took a concrete step. Following the lead of Google, which made a similar move earlier in the day, Facebook announced that it will ban fake news sites from using its advertising network. It’s a fine start. It is not nearly enough.

The furor over fake news is warranted. Fabricated stories about the pope endorsing Trump or an FBI agent getting murdered for leaking Clinton’s emails may have composed a small fraction of all the political content shared on Facebook. (Zuckerberg declared, without sharing any evidence, that more than 99 percent of Facebook content is “authentic.”) But they and others like them were so widely shared—nearly 1 million times in the case of the bogus pope endorsement—that it’s easy to imagine they played a role in at least some voters’ thinking. By contrast, a major investigative scoop from the New York Times about Trump’s tax returns was shared fewer than 200,000 times. The presence of fake news side by side with real news, in identical format, contributes to a sense that anything you read in the news feed could just as well be true as entirely made up.

Yet in the long run, fake news on Facebook may prove to be a relatively short-lived concern compared with the deeper fault line that the tremors have exposed. It reveals a company increasingly torn between its self-conception as a neutral technology platform and its undeniable influence on the creation, distribution, and consumption of news and other media. And it’s left Zuckerberg, one of the world’s most powerful executives, struggling to keep control of his company and the story it tells about itself.

He’s right, by the way, to be wary of casting Facebook in the role of arbiter of journalistic credibility. A news feed that’s a messy free-for-all is probably preferable to one in which only Facebook-approved sources can be heard. So let’s grant that it would be impossible for Facebook to stamp out all falsehoods in its network and perhaps even dangerous for it to even try, were it to cast too expansive a net. Even so, the existence of Macedonian click-farms dedicated to churning out fake news stories for profit is a clear sign that Facebook could be doing more to address the small fraction of content that is obviously bogus. Even Zuckerberg admits this.

What was odd about Zuckerberg’s response to the fake news problem was how adamant he seemed that it had no impact. Facebook’s whole premise as a business is that what people read in their news feeds can influence their decisions—otherwise, there would be little point in advertising there. And Zuckerberg has been more than happy to trumpet the company’s estimate that it encouraged 2 million people who might have otherwise stayed home to vote. Yet he wants us to believe that fake news stories played no role at all.

If Gizmodo’s report is accurate, it would cast Zuckerberg’s pooh-poohing of the fake news problem in an ugly new light. It would suggest that the company knew fake news was helping one political party more than the other and that it declined to take action for that very reason. It would imply that Zuckerberg isn’t just in denial—he’s flat-out lying.

But there’s another explanation for his defiant stance that doesn’t rely on speculation (or single anonymous sources). It’s that Zuckerberg is so loath to take responsibility for the content that appears on Facebook—so reluctant to be weighed down by its baggage, even as he runs the conveyor belt—that he’d rather deny its effects than grapple with its causes.

That’s consistent with Zuckerberg’s approach to other deeper questions about Facebook’s role in the media, including the charge that it insulates users in ideological bubbles by reinforcing what they already believe. “All the research we have suggests that this isn’t really a problem,” Zuckerberg said on Thursday, citing a Facebook-funded 2015 study that has been criticized as misleading. The data showed that Facebook does in fact expose users primarily to political content that conforms to their partisan identifications. But the study concluded, a little defensively, that this problem was insignificant compared with the problem of users’ own choices as to which sort of content to engage with. As Jefferson Pooley pointed out in Slate, it’s impossible to reproduce Facebook’s findings, because the company won’t let independent researchers see its data.

Dubious as the study’s conclusions are, it seems to have convinced Zuckerberg beyond a doubt that Facebook doesn’t have a filter-bubble problem. That’s convenient for Facebook, since addressing such an issue would require rethinking the fundamental structure of its algorithm and user experience. Evidently Facebook’s users are not the only ones subject to confirmation bias and epistemic closure.

There is an even more subtle and insidious effect of Facebook’s algorithm that has gone almost unmentioned in this saga. It’s the incentive Facebook creates for the media—both the hoax-disseminating media and the truth-telling one—to write and frame stories in ways that are geared to generate likes, clicks, and shares among the social network’s users. The illusion that Facebook is a neutral platform should have been shattered long ago by the obvious ways it has warped online news coverage, from the manipulative headlines to the feeding frenzies over sensational stories and anecdotes that are too good to check. If you were trying to design a media diet that could help give rise to something like the Trump phenomenon, you could hardly do better than 24-hour cable news and the Facebook news feed. To its credit, Facebook has acknowledged the problems of clickbait and likebait and made real efforts to mitigate its own perverse incentives. But even as Zuckerberg has repeatedly addressed the issue of fake news, he has evinced no awareness of the other ways Facebook might have disrupted political coverage for the worse.

Drill down into Facebook’s reasons for insisting that it isn’t a media company, and you’ll hit layer upon layer of denial.

Finally, there’s Zuckerberg’s oft-criticized denial that Facebook is a media company. “It’s a technology company,” he says, as if that settles it. There are valid arguments on both sides, and no doubt the company has its feet in both sectors. It would be eminently reasonable for Facebook to admit that it is a media company in some key respects but not in others. But Zuckerberg denies even that. To him, there is no argument.

Drill down into Facebook’s reasons for insisting that it isn’t a media company, and you’ll hit layer upon layer of denial. It denies that it’s a media company because that allows it to further deny that Facebook shapes not only how the news is distributed, but how it is reported, framed, discussed, and perceived. That in turn allows it to deny that its humans or algorithms might exhibit any bias that could warp the news for better or worse or favor one set of interests over another. If Facebook is a neutral platform, as it insists, then it can deny any responsibility for how people use it, any responsibility for what they post or share, any responsibility to ensure the accuracy or fairness or journalistic virtue of whatever news might circulate on it.

The ultimate denial, and the underlying purpose of it all, is to deny the very possibility of any tension between Facebook’s own interests and the interests of society. Facebook, by Zuckerberg’s lights, is simply a powerful tool for making the world more open and connected. And if that means Trump is elected U.S. president, there must have been good reasons for his election that had nothing to do with Facebook. Or, in Zuckerberg’s words, “voters make decisions based on their lived experience”—as if Facebook weren’t a part of that, as if its $335 billion market value weren’t a function of the incredible degree to which it has managed to ingratiate itself into people’s daily lives, as if our online and offline lives weren’t now irrevocably intertwined.

Either the internal contradiction of Zuckerberg’s position is lost on him or, more likely, he recognizes it but refuses to acknowledge it. His discretion makes sense, from a business perspective if not a moral one, if he believes that confronting Facebook’s impact on politics would require changes that would hurt the company’s bottom line. But coming from a figure who preaches the gospel of openness, it’s baffling.

It now seems, however, that Zuckerberg has lost the faith of some of his own employees on this issue. Facebook has rarely been a leaky company in the past. But the leaks started with its bungling of the trending news controversy, and they’ve resurfaced around the fake news debate. Facebook’s move on Monday to cut off advertising to fake news sites feels like an acknowledgement from the top that outright denial is no longer tenable.

The question now is how far Facebook will go to placate its critics. The last time it faced an uproar over its influence on U.S. politics—the overblown controversy involving its trending news section—it grossly overreacted and made everything worse. That seems less likely this time, especially since the news feed is a far more precious product to the company.

Top Comment

As long as they keep posting the real stuff we'll be fine, like the "78 Cancers that Can Be Cured with Cannabis Oil" etc More...

Join In

What’s more likely is that Facebook will seek to isolate and defuse the fake news issue while preserving its claim to be a neutral technology platform. As John Herrman pointed out in the New York Times last week, Facebook may already be evolving in ways that render the current controversy largely irrelevant. For instance, it has been partnering with prestigious media outlets to produce video content, broadcast live videos, and publish glossy “instant articles” within the news feed itself. It’s using the power of its algorithm to prioritize those forms over others, including links to news stories from publishers around the web. It’s conceivable that Facebook will end up drowning out most fake news, along with a lot of legitimate content from second- and third-tier web publishers, without having to police it any more actively than it already does.

Those clamoring for Facebook to fix its fake news problem should be careful what they wish for. They might find in a few years that the fake news is gone—but the filter bubbles, the perverse incentives, and Facebook’s pretense to algorithmic neutrality remain.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/11/the_problem_with_facebook_runs_much_deeper_than_fa ke_news.html

Wooglin
16 Nov 16,, 02:48
Had Trump lost there would not be the pretense of "soul searching"
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-red-state-20161110-story.html

Journalist made a black friend...

Bigoted, hypocrite douche throws tantrum, as if his supposed midwest target audience gives a shit about the opinion section of the LA Times. LOL.

Parihaka
16 Nov 16,, 20:08
To be fair there was the odd voice, pre-election in this case

This Election Has Disgraced the Entire Profession of Journalism


There’s nothing secret about the media’s anti-Trump stance. A formal declaration of war was launched on August 7, when Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times media columnist, wrote a story under the headline, “Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism.” Rutenberg wrote that journalists were in a terrible bind trying to stay objective because Trump, among other things, “cozies up to anti-American dictators,” has “put financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies,” and that his foreign policy views “break with decades-old …consensus.”

Rutenberg made clear that he and other reporters viewed “a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous,” which required them to report on him with a particularly critical point of view. This, he said, would make journalists “move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional,” which would be “uncomfortable and uncharted territory.”

There are so many things wrong with all this that it’s hard to know where to start. Rutenberg’s comment about dictators was clearly a reference to Vladimir Putin, who is an authoritarian leader who Trump, to his shame, admires. However, Russia is not the world’s worst dictatorship — and has been far more effective at fighting ISIS than the Obama administration — and Hillary’s cordial relationship with the Saudi regime, to cite just one example, seems far more dangerous. But rethinking “the alliances that have guided our foreign policy for 60 years” — the alliances that have resulted in non-stop war since 9/11 and the U.S.’s current involvement in seven overseas conflicts — is not an acceptable position for a presidential candidate in Rutenberg’s view.

Furthermore, how is it that the media has derogated to itself the right to decide what candidates deserve special scrutiny and what policies are acceptable? In a democracy, that is supposed to be the voters’ job.

And worst of all is Rutenberg’s statement about the role of journalists. “All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed,” I.F. Stone once wrote. “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations,” said George Orwell. For those two self-evident reasons, being “oppositional” is the only place political journalists should ever be, no matter who is in power or who is campaigning.

Much more (http://observer.com/2016/11/this-election-has-disgraced-the-entire-profession-of-journalism/)

Parihaka
16 Nov 16,, 20:12
Of course those few who did speak out (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/06/the-mainstream-media-has-a-donald-j-trump-sized-blind-spot.html), got fired. (http://heatst.com/world/vice-reporter-fired-after-story-questioning-whether-lena-dunham-voted-in-primary/) And/or death threats. (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly)

TopHatter
16 Nov 16,, 22:13
being “oppositional” is the only place political journalists should ever be, no matter who is in power or who is campaigning.
Unless of course its a liberal in power...then you give them a huge pass on pretty much everything.

Parihaka
18 Nov 16,, 01:25
Unless of course its a liberal in power...then you give them a huge pass on pretty much everything.

Never mind. You have 4 years of the Govt. being held to account for every action both real and imagined, just the way it should be :-)

TopHatter
18 Nov 16,, 02:36
Never mind. You have 4 years of the Govt. being held to account for every action both real and imagined, just the way it should be :-)

*sigh* If only that were true. Very little will change. Very little ever does.

Parihaka
18 Nov 16,, 03:01
*sigh* If only that were true. Very little will change. Very little ever does.

Oh come on. You know the legacy media will be attacking every republican ever, now that the Republicans hold power, every single one will be under constant scrutiny. This is a good thing. You just need to get them to do it to Democrats as well LOL

Parihaka
21 Nov 16,, 19:11
The "fake news" campaign is ramping up via the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html), aimed squarely at contemporary media outlets. They still haven't got it through their thick little heads that facebook, twitter etc can only use algorithms to censor ascii, not graphics.

For context, here's a handy list of the NYT own faked news (http://www.mrc.org/articles/top-10-10th-anniversary-times-watch-presenting-absolute-worst-new-york-times)

The latest of course is this wee pearler from CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-team-seeks-top-secret-security-clearances-for-trump-children/), claiming the Trump 'children' were asking for security clearance.

This was enough for Politico to then include the 'made up shyt' in its latest poll (http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000158-84cd-d631-afdb-9ecd52840001)

Parihaka
21 Nov 16,, 19:47
Meanwhile, the jockeying begins
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/20/media/donald-trump-ari-emanuel/index.html?iid=EL
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/media/donald-trump-meeting-tv-networks/index.html

troung
22 Nov 16,, 14:41
http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/

Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f−−−ing firing squad’
By Emily Smith and Daniel Halper
November 21, 2016 | 5:12pm | Updated

Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told The Post.

“It was like a f−−−ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.

“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said, ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing-down,” the source added.

A second source confirmed the fireworks.

“The meeting took place in a big boardroom and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate — which was Martha Raddatz, who was also in the room.”

The stunned reporters tried to get a word in edgewise to discuss access to a Trump administration.

“[‘CBS Good Morning’ co-host Gayle] King did not stand up, but asked some question, ‘How do you propose we the media work with you?’ Chuck Todd asked some pretty pointed questions. David Muir asked, ‘How are you going to cope living in DC while your family is in NYC?’ It was a horrible meeting.”

Trump spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway told reporters the gathering went well.

“Excellent meetings with the top executives of the major networks,” she said during a gaggle in the lobby of Trump Tower. “Pretty unprecedented meeting we put together in two days.”

The meeting was off the record, meaning the participants agreed not to talk about the substance of the conversations.

The hour-long session included top execs from network and cable news channels. Among the attendees were NBC’s Deborah Turness, Lester Holt and Chuck Todd; ABC’s James Goldston, George Stephanopoulos, David Muir and Martha Raddatz; CBS’ Norah O’Donnell, John Dickerson, Charlie Rose, Christopher Isham and King; Fox News’ Bill Shine, Jack Abernethy, Jay Wallace and Suzanne Scott; MSNBC’s Phil Griffin, and CNN’s Jeff Zucker and Erin Burnett.

Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, plans to meet with Trump on Tuesday.

There was no immediate comment from the Trump Team.

TopHatter
22 Nov 16,, 17:56
Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f−−−ing firing squad’

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate — which was Martha Raddatz, who was also in the room.”


Tough shit, it's about time somebody called them out on their blatant bias and partisanship.

I despise Donald Trump, to put it mildly, but things like this make me stand up and cheer.

bfng3569
22 Nov 16,, 23:04
Tough shit, it's about time somebody called them out on their blatant bias and partisanship.

I despise Donald Trump, to put it mildly, but things like this make me stand up and cheer.

nice to see it was 'off the record'......

troung
23 Nov 16,, 00:21
Tough shit, it's about time somebody called them out on their blatant bias and partisanship.

Shame it wasn't on camera.


Seeing as they are already back at it the self examination phase ended quickly..



Double Take: How Globe columnists covered the election

I highlighted Trump’s bigotry, not Clinton’s credibility

The press told voters what they should think and ignored what they did think.

By Joan Vennochi | Globe Columnist

Last July, after I wrote a column about Hillary Clinton’s trust problem, a former colleague e-mailed me this message: “If you others keep writing stuff like this you’re going to get Trump.”

I didn’t want Donald Trump. Eventually, I, like others, accepted the premise it was more important to highlight Trump’s sexism and bigotry than Clinton’s credibility on e-mail matters or the Clinton Foundation. That media mindset failed to stop Trump. But it did transform political journalism into an act of telling voters what they should think, which meant ignoring or dismissing what they did think.

For me, the disconnect happened frequently.

Even as I mostly refrained from writing about Clinton’s e-mails, I also knew from neighbors and relatives it wasn’t going away as a deal breaker whether or not the press believed it should be one.

I wrote about the “Access Hollywood’’ video, which showed Trump bragging about grabbing women as a perk of wealth and celebrity and was bolstered by women who came forward to say they were victims of Trump’s groping. But Bill Clinton was twice elected president, despite his own history of inappropriate sexual behavior, and I knew that for some voters that would inoculate Trump.

Trump blamed Clinton for 30 years of failed government policies, a silly and unfair charge. But she never had a good comeback. She talked about her career in public service, but never acknowledged that despite the best of intentions, some government programs just don’t work. Trump’s “what the hell do you have to lose?” pitch to black voters was derided as patronizing and vulgar. And it was. But it also reminded voters what happens when government fails to deliver on its promises.

Trump’s acceptance speech at the RNC in Cleveland was vilified as dark and dystopian. But it had all been said before by Richard Nixon in 1968. Nixon, too, saw “cities enveloped in smoke and flame,” “heard “sirens in the night” and with that, “the voice of the great majority of Americans, the forgotten Americans.”

At least Nixon made some sense as standard bearer for the white middle class.

During a weekend visit to New York City, I joined other tourists in front of Trump Tower, craning our necks to see where the next president of the United States lives in penthouse splendor. From that vantage point, it’s hard to view Trump as spokesman for the forgotten.

Yet walking back to our hotel on the other side of town, we stopped at a bar on 9th Avenue, and met a window washer named Spencer, who voted for Trump. “Donald,” he said, was going to shake things up. Clinton, he said, was a smart lady but, unfortunately, “under indictment” for her e-mail problems.

I didn’t bother to set him straight on Clinton. As for Trump, Spencer believes what he believes, until the next president fails him, or delivers for him. The press can and should howl away at what that means. But for now, Trump’s America doesn’t care what we think.

Joan Vennochi can be reached at vennochi@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @Joan_Vennochi.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/11/22/highlighted-trump-bigotry-not-clinton-credibility/HdhPDpOQNFyaflbWuwilTJ/story.html

Triple C
23 Nov 16,, 00:43
If you had followed the fake news controversy, looked at the list of fake news producers and decided their output was OK, you are part of the problem--seekers of blatantly false information that provides a comfort blanket for an ideology. Morning Joe? He's an entertainer and a frequent advisor dispensing wisdom (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/us/politics/a-trump-tower-view-of-the-new-boss.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1) to Donald Trump. I will pass over cable TV without comment.

NTY, however, is right about Donald Trump: unfit for office, selfish, and is cheered on by people motivated by anti-liberal ressentiment who had cut the nose to spite the face.

The flaw that did exist, however, was not nearly enough footwork on investigating whom the candidates are and do, but too much reliance on what they say and what the paper thinks.

Chunder
24 Nov 16,, 13:58
NTY, however, is right about Donald Trump: unfit for office, selfish, and is cheered on by people motivated by anti-liberal ressentiment who had cut the nose to spite the face.


The NYT is a god forsaken rag, how in the heck it purports to uphold journalistic standards is beyond me. It's like it somehow became the flag bearer of mentioned Journalism merely because of some thoroughbred lineage. It stopped that long ago when you couldn't turn to it for objectivity.

Read TIME, then read the NYT, one isn't worth wiping your ass on, the other one gets put in libraries.

One thing it's good for is a rally point for suckers with the proclivity to source material from a reliable echo chamber. It even recognizes it's bias might mean that people not turn to it for information. boohoo, everyone who doesn't agree with me is a shit person, i know better than you, you KKK voters, 52% of women, ex Obama voters, etc.

Heard it all before. Like I suppose half those that voted, and probably the majority who didn't.

Double Edge
24 Nov 16,, 14:39
Zimdars also advises readers to check multiple mainstream news sources to see if the same story and facts are published there,
or what the mods have been enforcing on this forum for years


...especially if a story makes a reader feel "really angry."
hehe, this one i figured on my own.


People tend to read, like, and share stories that appeal to their emotions and play to their existing beliefs. Without robust countervailing forces favoring credibility and accuracy, Facebook’s news feed algorithm is bound to spread lies, especially those that serve to bolster people’s preconceived biases. And these falsehoods are bound to influence people’s thinking.
aka confirmation bias. This one is much harder to deal with. I have no immunity to it. Imaybe hanging out with people whose views are diametrically opposite to one's own helps as a reality check to some extent. Hanging out with people that are not from your own country helps strip away the propaganda echo chamber.

Though in general the american media has been mostly useless in this election. The anti trump message was quite real. Avoiding american media and relying on local media was worse as they were just parroting what american media was saying without on the ground local knowledge. How the heck can foreign media do anything if your own local media can't do it.

So many times i see people ranting about MSM and always thought them to be misfits of sorts. well, this election shows otherwise.

It seems if you want better quality reporting then this ad model isn't going to cut it, you're going to have to pay. Otherwise the temptation is whatever gets the punters in and there are all sorts of tricks to do that. it's all becoming more tabloid-y.

Parihaka
24 Nov 16,, 16:08
Though in general the american media has been mostly useless in this election. The anti trump message was quite real. Avoiding american media and relying on local media was worse as they were just parroting what american media was saying without on the ground local knowledge. How the heck can foreign media do anything if your own local media can't do it.

Same problem here, I've had to balance out the legacy media in the States with Al Jazeera, whatever the Russian state media has and even the so-called @-right stuff from the States, all biased, all to some extent racist, all fractured and extremist. There needs to be a Drudge style clearing house that charges an monthly fee for access to multiple pay-per-view sites, a minimal fee for each article rather than a subscription to one publication. In just the same way that Netflix compares to the old bundled channels.

Double Edge
25 Nov 16,, 13:02
I gave up after a point, the debates would be one measure and what a lot pf people would go of. However i went off my own instincts rather than media interpretations of it. Then waited for the result. We have that. We don't know the team he will pick yet so there is still more waiting and when they make moves then we can discuss.

Russian media, heh, posting anything RT over here is just asking for trouble. I don't have a handle on them as yet. Some of the articles i've read are completely the opposite of whatever you read in the western press. Very difficult to get bearings there much harder to defend. because i do not fully understand Russian interests yet. This will change over time.

Jazeera has been doing a decent job something different if not reactionary.

In the end Trump is going to have to learn the difference between campaigning and governing. It will be harder for him as he isn't establishment and has a very steep learning curve ahead. Just watch any moves get slammed without enough thought. The american establishment is uneasy with him, how the heck are they going to work with him and vice versa. Which to me makes this result even more meaningful, its like a peoples victory over the establishment. I remember Ben saying voting in US elections is pointless as your vote does not count, well i'd like to see what he has to say now : D

What is the american deep state going to do, oppose him so he is ineffective until they can impeach him or whatever. He has cover for now, repubs control both houses.

tbm3fan
25 Nov 16,, 20:34
The NYT is a god forsaken rag, how in the heck it purports to uphold journalistic standards is beyond me. It's like it somehow became the flag bearer of mentioned Journalism merely because of some thoroughbred lineage. It stopped that long ago when you couldn't turn to it for objectivity.

Read TIME, then read the NYT, one isn't worth wiping your ass on, the other one gets put in libraries.

One thing it's good for is a rally point for suckers with the proclivity to source material from a reliable echo chamber. It even recognizes it's bias might mean that people not turn to it for information. boohoo, everyone who doesn't agree with me is a shit person, i know better than you, you KKK voters, 52% of women, ex Obama voters, etc.

Heard it all before. Like I suppose half those that voted, and probably the majority who didn't.

A rag? I don't think so and neither does Trump. He may have ragged on them during the election because they didn't like him and he craves fawning approval. Note what happened in the past week. He first said he cancelled his meeting with the Times and then it was back on. Unlike an earlier meeting with the TV press who trekked to Trump Towers he trekked to the Times. Supplicants usually trek to the Tower. That alone is significant. The NYT knows they have the upper hand in power and Trump knows that to. He has never been foolish enough not to recognize strength.

He wants to be liked by the press and especially by the NYT. He knows the NYT sets the pace of reporting which is why he then came out and said they were a great paper. While craving adoration and attention, which he can get easily through his use of social media, he has no control over the Times. A double edge sword for him since he needs control but can't get it over the Times to say nice, really nice things, about him.

TopHatter
25 Nov 16,, 20:35
In the end Trump is going to have to learn the difference between campaigning and governing

I predict popcorn sales will skyrocket. This is going to be even more entertaining than when Obama realized there was a difference between the two.

tbm3fan
25 Nov 16,, 20:39
I predict popcorn sales will skyrocket. This is going to be even more entertaining than when Obama realized there was a difference between the two.

Wonder when a betting line should start for the first resignation from his Cabinet. God knows there are several who clearly are out of their leagues.

Parihaka
25 Nov 16,, 20:56
I gave up after a point, the debates would be one measure and what a lot pf people would go of. However i went off my own instincts rather than media interpretations of it. Then waited for the result. We have that. We don't know the team he will pick yet so there is still more waiting and when they make moves then we can discuss.

Russian media, heh, posting anything RT over here is just asking for trouble. I don't have a handle on them as yet. Some of the articles i've read are completely the opposite of whatever you read in the western press. Very difficult to get bearings there much harder to defend. because i do not fully understand Russian interests yet. This will change over time.

Jazeera has been doing a decent job something different if not reactionary.

In the end Trump is going to have to learn the difference between campaigning and governing. It will be harder for him as he isn't establishment and has a very steep learning curve ahead. Just watch any moves get slammed without enough thought. The american establishment is uneasy with him, how the heck are they going to work with him and vice versa. Which to me makes this result even more meaningful, its like a peoples victory over the establishment. I remember Ben saying voting in US elections is pointless as your vote does not count, well i'd like to see what he has to say now : D

What is the american deep state going to do, oppose him so he is ineffective until they can impeach him or whatever. He has cover for now, repubs control both houses.
Not really too much cover. The 'old' Republican establishment was to my eyes indistinguishable from the Democrat party. While he eviscerated the Republican election machine, the senators and congressmen are the same old bunch with the same old agendas. The Dems only hope of survival is to double down on the war on conservatism, uniting it's divided factions against "the enemy". It's in most elected Republicans interest to follow their lead and continue on the globalist path they've both been following for the last three decades.

I've been reading up on Henry A. Wallace (http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm) again.
Strip out the word Fascism (or communism for that matter, they're almost indistinguishable) and replace it with the current iteration Globalism, and you have both internationalist movements, whether Tory/New Labour, Republican/Democrat, or indeed most other political parties in the Anglosphere. Eerily prescient.

Parihaka
25 Nov 16,, 21:01
I predict popcorn sales will skyrocket. This is going to be even more entertaining than when Obama realized there was a difference between the two.

I have to admit I never actually saw Obama realize this. All I've ever seen is the Chicago community organiser. He said as much himself during election 2 when he said it was impossible for him to bring change from within i.e. he was better as an opposer than a leader.

bonehead
25 Nov 16,, 23:18
Wonder when a betting line should start for the first resignation from his Cabinet. God knows there are several who clearly are out of their leagues.

Trump is going to fire them before they get a chance to resign. They are there for one thing only...to shoulder the blame for Trumps inadequacies.

Double Edge
26 Nov 16,, 04:59
Not really too much cover. The 'old' Republican establishment was to my eyes indistinguishable from the Democrat party. While he eviscerated the Republican election machine, the senators and congressmen are the same old bunch with the same old agendas. The Dems only hope of survival is to double down on the war on conservatism, uniting it's divided factions against "the enemy". It's in most elected Republicans interest to follow their lead and continue on the globalist path they've both been following for the last three decades.
One of the people on the local programs was saying Hilary could call up 700 people to help make foreign policy. Trump has about 20. This can grow. people will have to get over it and work. It will be a collective learning experience. It does mean that this team is not going to be the best it can be but they will learn.

But Trump won on a domestic agenda. Nobody cares about foriegn policy. which is what everybody outside the US is watching. One israeli analyst said think of him as Jackson. Can be assertive if needed then slips back to isolation. This will have implications if vacuum is created. Isn't this what people wanted. No more global police. heh, not everybody.


I've been reading up on Henry A. Wallace (http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm) again.
Strip out the word Fascism (or communism for that matter, they're almost indistinguishable) and replace it with the current iteration Globalism, and you have both internationalist movements, whether Tory/New Labour, Republican/Democrat, or indeed most other political parties in the Anglosphere. Eerily prescient.
About the fascism & communism being indistinguishable, was listening to a russian defector called Yuri Maltsev. He makes this point. Yuri is big on liberty.There was this movie he was referring to called 'Soviet story' that came out in 2008. Directed by a Latvian. Who funded it? the EU.

Globalism is a large topic. There are benefits going around. But its having to join a club to get those benefits that is tricky if you're not on the committee making the rules. It seems even if you are in the club some people just can't get along and want to quit. UK.

What happened to finding or opening markets wherever possible. Who are you going to sell your goods to otherwise. Turn the clock back and goods available in one country remain there and it becomes too expensive to send it elsewhere. Companies never grow beyond their own borders. Trade between countries is less because there are so many barriers.

Double Edge
26 Nov 16,, 05:02
A rag? I don't think so and neither does Trump. He may have ragged on them during the election because they didn't like him and he craves fawning approval. Note what happened in the past week. He first said he cancelled his meeting with the Times and then it was back on. Unlike an earlier meeting with the TV press who trekked to Trump Towers he trekked to the Times. Supplicants usually trek to the Tower. That alone is significant. The NYT knows they have the upper hand in power and Trump knows that to. He has never been foolish enough not to recognize strength.

He wants to be liked by the press and especially by the NYT. He knows the NYT sets the pace of reporting which is why he then came out and said they were a great paper. While craving adoration and attention, which he can get easily through his use of social media, he has no control over the Times. A double edge sword for him since he needs control but can't get it over the Times to say nice, really nice things, about him.
I remember when Bush came to office, the complaint was access was hard which made getting those headlines harder. The Bush administration was being selective with whom they spoke to. The liberal media is going to be at loggerheads with a govt that isn't of the same conviction.

The media can put someone in office and get them thrown out. But while he is in office they have bills to pay and this is where he has the upper hand.

Will the media bias continue after he is in office ? only if they are mismanaged.

Chunder
26 Nov 16,, 10:41
A rag? I don't think so and neither does Trump. He may have ragged on them during the election because they didn't like him and he craves fawning approval. Note what happened in the past week. He first said he cancelled his meeting with the Times and then it was back on. Unlike an earlier meeting with the TV press who trekked to Trump Towers he trekked to the Times. ...

And on, and on.

You don't, I Do. Failure to represent impartiality, or at least return to it. That's what matters, not of course to those whoom lean to the left (and lets face it, the Times has thrown it's support to the left as long as I can remember). Because all you need to do is be seen as a crock by the real power brokers - the swinging voters in the middle to equal declining readership. I certainly won't be relying on them for my Trump coverage for sure.

Trump is merely throwing the Times a lifeline. It's a bait and switch. in case you haven't been paying attention (unlikely, you're a smart bloke) he's previously called at least one of their reporters a dog and a liar with a face of a pig. In fact it's hard to find one article which isn't rabidly anti trump over at RCP... and again, if anyone thinks this election wasn't a white wash in the face of campaign funding and media backing, they must be living on cloud 9.

You'd think they'd go and do an investigative article on why people voted for Trump; because it's evident they went right past the story. How on earth does the fourth estate get it that wrong? In case it couldn't be assumed as a bunch of group think and virtue signalling, one has to ask why their darling Hillary, lost to Donald. Fake news, lol. Please. More people across every metric voted for him than Romney - and slightly more woman even though he was *gasp* a misogynist and Hillary had a Va jay jay. But no.

Plenty of coverage about alleged racial attacks from alleged Trump supporters - none on the rioting, looting, and actual assaults of their aligned brethren on the left. Moderates give a damn about that.

Declining readership matters. Rag it is.

DOR
26 Nov 16,, 11:16
But Trump won on a domestic agenda.


I know there is much more in this post that deserves attention, and much with which I agree.

But, losing by 2+ million votes, and only winning by the Electoral College contradicts the idea that there was a policy / ideology / personality element to the outcome.

There could not be, not with those results.

It was purely an organizational victory.

bfng3569
26 Nov 16,, 15:56
I know there is much more in this post that deserves attention, and much with which I agree.

But, losing by 2+ million votes, and only winning by the Electoral College contradicts the idea that there was a policy / ideology / personality element to the outcome.

There could not be, not with those results.

It was purely an organizational victory.

Disagree wholeheartdely, when the majority of those 2 million votes originate from one or two states it becomes less relavant.

bonehead
26 Nov 16,, 21:30
I know there is much more in this post that deserves attention, and much with which I agree.

But, losing by 2+ million votes, and only winning by the Electoral College contradicts the idea that there was a policy / ideology / personality element to the outcome.

There could not be, not with those results.

It was purely an organizational victory.



It is the states that decide the presidency, not the popular vote and the states are "winner take all". For instance, a candidate could get a single vote in California NY and Illinois, eak out wins in every other state and that person is the next president...even though he lost by 20+ million votes. The moral of the story is that it does not matter how much you win or get beaten in every individual state. All that matters is that you win or lose each state.

Double Edge
27 Nov 16,, 13:19
The moral of the story is that it does not matter how much you win or get beaten in every individual state. All that matters is that you win or lose each state.
Right, my understanding is your founding fathers decided that the ten most populous states would not be dictating to the rest of the country who does or doesn't get into the white house. There is a level playing field of sorts here between the most populous states and the lesseraka electoral college. This is a good thing.

If he wins in more states it means support for him was more consistent than being concentrated only in some areas which is the case with Hillary hence more votes.

Why he won i cannot say. So policy /ideology/ personality is hard to answer. One thing is consistent is your people favor non establishment types. Similar was seen with Obama.

tbm3fan
28 Nov 16,, 01:55
Right, my understanding is your founding fathers decided that the ten most populous states would not be dictating to the rest of the country who does or doesn't get into the white house. There is a level playing field of sorts here between the most populous states and the lesseraka electoral college. This is a good thing.

If he wins in more states it means support for him was more consistent than being concentrated only in some areas which is the case with Hillary hence more votes.

Why he won i cannot say. So policy /ideology/ personality is hard to answer. One thing is consistent is your people favor non establishment types. Similar was seen with Obama.

Your understanding would be more accurate as the Founding Fathers did not think the population was sophisticated, nor educated enough, to actually select a President by popular vote therefore the Electoral College. At the time there were only 13 states and most had relatively small populations and I'd call only three as small. The two biggest wouldn't even be in the top ten today.

http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf

Now I am curious about your comment about how a minority, whether in small states or not, can dictate policy to the majority. California may be a big state but do you have any idea how many people have moved to this state, from small states, in the last ten years? Now since typically democracy means majority rules as in 50% of the vote plus one. Could you explain?

bfng3569
28 Nov 16,, 03:09
Your understanding would be more accurate as the Founding Fathers did not think the population was sophisticated, nor educated enough, to actually select a President by popular vote therefore the Electoral College. At the time there were only 13 states and most had relatively small populations and I'd call only three as small. The two biggest wouldn't even be in the top ten today.

http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf

Now I am curious about your comment about how a minority, whether in small states or not, can dictate policy to the majority. California may be a big state but do you have any idea how many people have moved to this state, from small states, in the last ten years? Now since typically democracy means majority rules as in 50% of the vote plus one. Could you explain?

If That were the case for the Electoral College then it wouldn't be weighted.

And it's not a democracy, it's a republic. Or something like that......

Wooglin
28 Nov 16,, 04:07
Now I am curious about your comment about how a minority, whether in small states or not, can dictate policy to the majority. California may be a big state but do you have any idea how many people have moved to this state, from small states, in the last ten years? Now since typically democracy means majority rules as in 50% of the vote plus one. Could you explain?

Not sure what CA migration has to do with it, but the answer is less people moved to CA from other states than moved away to other states, over the last ten years and longer.

tbm3fan
28 Nov 16,, 05:48
Not sure what CA migration has to do with it, but the answer is less people moved to CA from other states than moved away to other states, over the last ten years and longer.

Migration has nothing to do with what I was referring to. Probably why you weren't sure.

Wooglin
28 Nov 16,, 06:31
Migration has nothing to do with what I was referring to. Probably why you weren't sure.

So this part...


California may be a big state but do you have any idea how many people have moved to this state, from small states, in the last ten years?

...was just a random comment again? I assume you brought it up for a reason. What does people moving to CA, from small states, have to do with majority rules, or whatever point it was supposed to make?

DOR
28 Nov 16,, 09:11
It is the states that decide the presidency, not the popular vote and the states are "winner take all". For instance, a candidate could get a single vote in California NY and Illinois, eak out wins in every other state and that person is the next president...even though he lost by 20+ million votes. The moral of the story is that it does not matter how much you win or get beaten in every individual state. All that matters is that you win or lose each state.

Thank you for making my point: the votes were on the wrong side of political boundary lines.
Hence, "organizational" misstep, not any other kind.

Double Edge
13 Dec 16,, 12:52
Now I am curious about your comment about how a minority, whether in small states or not, can dictate policy to the majority. California may be a big state but do you have any idea how many people have moved to this state, from small states, in the last ten years? Now since typically democracy means majority rules as in 50% of the vote plus one. Could you explain?
Just saying states with larger populations don't have an overwhelming say over smaller ones. The system allows for a consistent take across the country. Or as much as is feasible.

troung
15 Dec 16,, 16:49
Christie's revenge: Kill the Press | Editorial
Gov. Chris Christie and his buddy, Donald Trump, share a disdain for the press. Christie is now taking his revenge. (Justin Sullivan | Getty Images)

ByStar-Ledger Editorial Board
December 14, 2016

You can tell when the old boys in Trenton are doing something dastardly, just by the timing. If it's awful, they move fast, before the stink can travel far.

So it is with this week's attempt to kill jobs in the newspaper industry, on the bogus promise of saving money for local taxpayers.

Gov. Chris Christie, a vindictive soul who has made no secret of his hatred for the free press, is pushing it hard. And Democratic leaders, always ready to make a deal, even a craven one, are going along with it.

The purpose of this bill, when you cut through the clutter, is to weaken the press, to defang the watchdogs who expose their bad behavior.

If you want to give state and local politicians free reign to do their dirty business in the dark, this bill is a Godsend. If you want to hasten the decline of the press in the era of Donald Trump, this one is for you. Be ready to rely more on fake news posted on Facebook.

First, full disclosure: The bill would damage the Star-Ledger and its sister papers, likely forcing another round of layoffs. This time, we are in the crosshairs. Statewide, 200 to 300 journalists would lose their jobs, and some papers would no doubt fold. Factor that in as you see fit.

But let's look at the merits, straight up.

This bill is pitched as a way for local governments to save money by posting legal advertisements on their own web sites, and not in local newspapers. But it would force local governments to fortify their web sites against hacking, and hire staff to process, format and track all the ads, a job now done by the newspapers.

So how much would it save, in the end? Probably nothing. The last time the boys in the back room tried to pull this stunt, in 2011, the Legislature's own research arm said it might not save a dime - and could even increase local costs. That may explain why no other state has done this.

And what about the digital divide? Local governments are required to post legal ads because voters have a right to know when a public contract goes up for bid, or a local business seeks permission to expand, or a foreclosed property goes up for sale.

Don't the elderly and the poor have that same right? Fresh data from the Pew Research Center shows a 33-point gap in internet use between young and old, a 35-point gap between college graduates and high schools dropouts, and a 21-point gap between the rich and poor. This bill, in effect, creates two classes of citizenship.

And because this is New Jersey, let's carefully consider the weapon this bill would place in the hands of a sleazy politician. It's not just that they would be able to hire family members while no one is watching, or vote themselves a raise.

It would give them new leverage to pressure the press. Under this bill, a mayor could threaten to pull the legal ads from the local paper preparing to print a damaging story.

Imagine the pressure on the publisher of a local paper that is barely surviving in today's market. The temptation would be to yield, to protect the staff and their families. And if you don't think New Jersey pols would play that rough, you haven't been paying attention. It is a sure thing.

That's the evil genius behind this bill. It would wipe out hundreds of watchdogs, and give the worst politicians a new way to fight those left standing. We are supposed to believe that would save taxpayers money?

If it were really about savings, this push would have come from the League of Municipalities. But Mike Cerra, its assistant executive director, said that while the League welcomes the move it had nothing to do with this push. "I can't say really where the push is from," he says.

We can. This is the work of a bruised governor who is reviled by most citizens of the state. He blames that on the press -- not on the scandals, the lies, and the undeniable failure of his leadership. This is his revenge.

"Who else would dream this up but somebody with that kind of evil mind?" asks Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Teaneck).

Hearings are set for Thursday. Don't bother calling the governor's office; he's lost. But if you want to stop him, please call your local legislator, along with Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) at (856) 251-9801, and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson) at (201) 770-1303.

This one is headed for approval unless people stand up and object. We have just a few days left.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/12/christies_revenge_kill_the_press_editorial.html#in cart_2box_opinion

Triple C
16 Dec 16,, 10:27
You'd think they'd go and do an investigative article on why people voted for Trump; because it's evident they went right past the story. How on earth does the fourth estate get it that wrong? ... Plenty of coverage about alleged racial attacks from alleged Trump supporters - none on the rioting, looting, and actual assaults of their aligned brethren on the left. Moderates give a damn about that.

Declining readership matters. Rag it is.

I think a lot of conservatives stopped reading the NYT because it leans liberal, then relies on conservative-leaning news aggregators to tell them what the NYT is like. The paper had ran multiple stories on Trump voters, their demography, possible reasons for the way they voted, as well as the how and why of the polling errors experienced. In nearly all of the NYT coverage on recent, politically motivated violence, they had mentioned Trump supporters were also attacked, often naming a specific case or cases.

That "liberal rags" are suppressing reports on anti-Trump is one possibility of why the those acts appear muted on mainstream media. Another reason, and in my opinion a more likely reason, is that attacks on minorities are in fact increasing in absolute and in comparative terms, and have been on the up and up for quite some time, due to the white identity backlash against recent gains in racial equality, of which Trump's political success is a part.

By the way, I continue to be astonished that tu quoque is continuously raised by some quarters on the WAB as a defense for violence perpetrated by the rightwing. It's as if the ugliness of Trump's personal conduct at his rallies in encouraging violence is all OK, because of BLM. And somehow, it is said that NYT did not report riots at BLM protests (which it did, of course) and that made Trump acceptable material for the presidency. So much for the moral doctrine of individual responsibility, then.

Readership is declining because media aggregators are far better at catering to the ideological predilections of readers and are better commercial models; plagiarism costs nothing, unlike having reporters; never admitting to mistakes in stories means never losing credibility with the gullible. This is happening across the board, globally.

FORMBY
30 Dec 16,, 19:05
Media Bias has existed since .... well a long, long time. If anyone doubted the bias of the media, all Doubting Thomas-es should have understood when the US introduced 'embedded journalism'. This was censored news at the most fundamental level. NOTHING was allowed to be printed without the guidance, permission, and censorship of the Whine House & the Pentagram. Wikileaks might be the most "un-biased" source of media there is today.

tankie
30 Dec 16,, 19:52
Media Bias has existed since .... well a long, long time. If anyone doubted the bias of the media, all Doubting Thomas-es should have understood when the US introduced 'embedded journalism'. This was censored news at the most fundamental level. NOTHING was allowed to be printed without the guidance, permission, and censorship of the Whine House & the Pentagram. Wikileaks might be the most "un-biased" source of media there is today.

Ohhhhh dear , incominggggggggggggggg .

FORMBY
30 Dec 16,, 21:19
Ohhhhh dear , incominggggggggggggggg .
Don't worry. I carry a bolt action 'single-shot'.

tankie
30 Dec 16,, 22:36
Don't worry. I carry a bolt action 'single-shot'.

Ah well , nevermind .

troung
04 Jan 17,, 19:53
Wapo schill downplaying the fact that the media got outed.


Julian Assange and Sean Hannity exaggerate media ‘collusion’
By Callum Borchers January 4 at 12:56 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/04/julian-assange-and-sean-hannity-exaggerate-media-collusion/

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange agrees with Sean Hannity's assessment that the media colluded with Hillary Clinton throughout the 2016 presidential election. He must not have read his own website's disclosures very carefully.

In an interview that aired Tuesday night on Fox News, Assange called the media “dishonest” (Donald Trump's favorite label) and “ethically corrupt,” and he endorsed Hannity's claim that WikiLeaks had revealed a press corps secretly in cahoots with Clinton when it published hacked emails belonging to Democrats.

“They're colluding, yes,” Assange said of the media and Clinton, adding that he believes the arrangement worked like this: “You rub my back; I'll rub yours.”

The trouble for Assange and Hannity is that the emails published by WikiLeaks during the campaign didn't really support such a breathless conclusion.

Assange and Hannity did not cite any examples of collusion in their conversation, but various conservative websites have published lists of emails that supposedly prove the media was playing for Team Hillary. Some are just plain silly. Others do show real coordination in isolated instances but are hardly indicative of a widespread problem among journalists.

In the second category are the infamous messages in which Donna Brazile tipped off Clinton's team to the nature and wording of several Democratic primary debate questions. At the time, Brazile was a Democratic National Committee vice chair and also a commentator on CNN.

“My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear,” Brazile said after CNN cut ties with her.

Brazile most definitely colluded with Clinton, but her conduct said more about the ethos of some political operatives than about the integrity of reporters. Brazile is not, and never was, a reporter.

Another email chain indicated that Univision chairman Haim Saban offered Clinton aides his advice on messaging to Latino voters. Not a good look. But it is worth remembering that Saban's support for Clinton was already well known; he and his wife had previously donated $10 million to a pro-Clinton super PAC.

Saban does not run the Univision newsroom. If you are skeptical of separation between a network chairman's politics and the network's news coverage, that is perfectly understandable. But even if that's your view, it makes little sense to view Univision as representative of the mainstream, English-language media.

Several other email exchanges that outraged conservatives simply don't qualify as collusion. One showed that Clinton's team viewed New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman as a “friendly journalist” to whom the campaign could offer a scoop. But there is no evidence that Haberman did anything improper, and it is common practice for political campaigns to pitch stories to reporters they believe will treat them well/fairly.

Another email written by Clinton's traveling press secretary, Nick Merrill, said the candidate and CNN producer Dan Merica “are basically courting each other at this point.” According to the Daily Caller, Merrill's note “illustrates the Democratic nominee's buddy-buddy strategy for manipulating campaign journalists.”

Or it was a joke. Merica and the Clinton campaign actually seemed to have a tense relationship at times, such as when he complained (regularly) on Twitter about a lack of news conferences and when other hacked emails revealed nervous aides trying to prevent him from asking questions.

In any case, there is no indication that Merica colluded with Clinton in any way. And there is nothing in the raft of emails published by WikiLeaks to suggest a broad media conspiracy to work with Clinton and help her win the White House.

For Assange and Hannity, charges of collusion by the media are self-serving. Both men seek to undermine confidence in the media while positioning themselves as more trustworthy alternatives. The vague accusations bandied about in their interview just don't hold up to scrutiny.

The breitbart list he mentions in the article
http://www.breitbart.com/wikileaks/2016/10/14/wikileaks-reveals-long-list-clinton-media-canoodling/

troung
11 Jan 17,, 15:03
https://theoutline.com/post/749/the-agony-and-the-ecstasy-of-kurt-eichenwald




The agony and the ecstasy of Kurt Eichenwald

If Eichenwald is the voice of anything, it is of the sickness that plagues the left.




By Alex Nichols

Jan—04—2017 01:12PM EST


Amid the uproar of Donald Trump’s seemingly impossible rise to the highest office in the land, liberals hungered for an authoritative voice. They found it in Newsweek writer Kurt Eichenwald, a former Republican who regularly deals in histrionics, bombast, and questionable ethics. Eichenwald, whose self-hyped pieces have nary broken news, has become infamous both for his wrongness and for his regular Twitter meltdowns. And yet, he has more than 200,000 followers on Twitter, a legion of influential fans, and is a frequent guest on cable news. Why has a bad and possibly corrupt journalist become a voice of the left? In all of his essence, Kurt Eichenwald is the journalist that the left deserves, and maybe it’s time for his wild media ride to end.

Eichenwald had a strong start as a newsman. He worked at The New York Times for more than 20 years, where he had a decorated career covering Wall Street, malpractice in kidney dialysis facilities, for-profit hospitals, and the fall of Enron. His run might have been remembered as a triumph of solid journalism, with Eichenwald cast as a modern Upton Sinclair. But, much like H. L. Mencken’s reporting on the Scopes Trial was later tarnished by his anti-Semitism, Eichenwald’s mainstream success led to a dramatic and tawdry fall that served to reduce his accomplishments to little more than a footnote.

js-rail-stack-tablet
Advertisement

Iconic






















Discover



In 2005, while still at the Times, Eichenwald switched his focus from business coverage to the seedy underground of online child pornography. Through a random search, he apparently discovered a website run by an 18-year-old named Justin Berry, who had been selling pornographic images and webcam shows of himself and other teen boys to pedophiles since the age of 13. In order to get Berry to meet him in real life, Eichenwald for some reason posed as a fan and subsequently convinced the young man to help him expose the child porn industry in the Times. Berry cooperated with Eichenwald for the article and, prior to publication, turned in a number of his associates in exchange for immunity to prosecution. The resulting story, titled “Through His Webcam, a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World,” led to two arrests, a Congressional hearing, and an episode of Oprah. It was a brief triumph for Eichenwald.

But in the months after publication, it was revealed that Eichenwald had failed to mention some pertinent details in how he went about reporting the story. Like how, in order to convince Berry to meet with him in real life, Eichenwald pretended to be an aging rock star. (Berry, for no explicable reason, assumed Eichenwald was Don Henley.) And how Berry and his business partner subsequently asked the journalist for, and were given $2,000, before meeting with him. This was something the editors at the Times had a problem with. As New York magazine reported in 2007, Eichenwald had asked Berry to give the money back when he started reporting the Times story, fearing a conflict of interest, but unfortunately even loaning money to a source is still unethical according to Times policy. Berry refused and kept the cash, along with an additional $1,100 Eichenwald sent him over PayPal, which the journalist later claimed not to remember sending due to epileptic seizures, according to New York. Eichenwald maintains that he only originally intended to “rescue” Berry, not report on him, and decided to write about his story many months after he sent him money.

In 2005, while still at the Times, Eichenwald switched his focus from business coverage to the seedy underground of online child pornography.

(As Jack Shafer put it in Slate: “Eichenwald didn’t consider himself a reporter when he contacted Berry. He didn’t consider himself a reporter when he sent Berry money. He didn’t consider himself a reporter when he flew to Los Angeles to meet Berry. He didn’t consider himself a reporter even when he told Berry he worked for The New York Times. But presto chango, he was a reporter as soon as Berry decided he wanted out of porn.”)

The damage was done. Sometime in the fall of 2006, Eichenwald left the Times for reasons unclear, and a few months later an editor’s note appeared on the story: “Times policy forbids paying the subjects of articles for information or interviews.”

Despite the weird black smear on his resume from paying a source who happened to be a child pornographer, Eichenwald’s post-Times career managed to pick up because men, especially those legitimized by The New York Times, fail upward. In 2009, his book The Informant was turned into a movie starring Matt Damon. In 2012, he published 500 Days, a nonfiction book about the aftermath of 9/11. Also that year, Vanity Fair hired him as a contributing editor. There, Eichenwald diverged from his passions of corporate malfeasance and child porn and started writing about American politics.

Eichenwald’s political beliefs are no more stable than his sense of journalistic ethics. At Vanity Fair, he adopted a particularly myopic form of liberalism that demanded unconditional loyalty to the Democratic party. Despite his rebranding as a strident partisan voice, his political allegiances were unclear until a few years ago. What did this guy believe, and did he really believe it? As a finance reporter, he was discouraged by the Times from letting his personal biases color his writing, but his continued highlighting of Medicare fraud during a time of widespread cuts to the social safety net seems to suggest a conservative streak. Although he frequently lashes out at third-party voters on Twitter and continues to blame Ralph Nader for the election of George W. Bush in 2000, he admitted on Twitter to voting for Bush himself (although he later revised this to say he almost voted for Bush in 2000 but ended up voting for him in 2004). Without a conversion narrative to explain his sudden change of heart, one has to assume one of two things: either he foresaw Obama’s historical victory and decided to jump on the bandwagon for the sake of his career, or he saw a common thread between the Bush and Obama administrations that allowed him to switch loyalties without compromising his strongest held beliefs.






In 2013, Eichenwald began writing for Newsweek, a barely existent magazine that has been sold twice in the last six years, once to nonagenarian businessman Sidney Harman, who died eight months later, and once to IBT Media, which has since laid off 10 percent of its staff with little to no severance pay. There, Eichenwald has continued to profess his love for the security state, bash Edward Snowden, and affect the pompous Aaron Sorkin voice that liberals love. But Eichenwald really hit his stride as a new-media journalist when Donald Trump emerged as the frontrunner in the Republican primaries last year, his media status rising along with the president-elect’s in a sick symbiosis. Eichenwald began devoting his Newsweek inches to vapid Trump takedown pieces. He wasn’t alone; Trump’s steady climb in the polls frightened a lot of centrist dweebs, most of whom reacted with cornball monologues and attacks that played right into The Donald’s hand. (He’s not a politician! He’s Dangerous Donald!) Eichenwald’s output became a mix of genuine, yet ultimately ineffective, muckraking (“Donald Trump’s Many Business Failures, Explained”) and signal boosts of failed Clinton campaign strategy. He readily latched onto the “Bernie Bro” smear and published a hysterical attack on Bernie Sanders on May 18, a month after Clinton’s primary victory in New York essentially guaranteed her the party nomination.

As the drama of the election heightened, Eichenwald’s Twitter behavior, previously odd, became absolutely erratic. In September, he tweeted, “I believe Trump was institutionalized in a mental hospital for a nervous breakdown in 1990, which is why he won’t release medical records.” When pressed on the provenance of this supposition, he deleted the tweet and ignored repeated requests for comment; later, he said that the tweet was a message to a source to signal that he wanted to talk. Okay. On election night, Eichenwald took to Twitter to drum up fears of a global economic collapse, claiming that he sold all his stocks months ago fearing what Trump would do to the stock market. (“Earliest projections: At least one trillion dollars of investment value has been wiped out tonight. So far.” 5,300 retweets.) After a brief fall, the Dow Jones and NASDAQ both bounced back. Two days later, Eichenwald implied that Pepe the Frog was a Russian propaganda tool, to 6,000 retweets. After his election myths article went up, he spent the next month complaining about people criticizing him from the left, claiming four separate times that Sanders supporters were more vicious than the Nazis of the alt-right; again, thousands of retweets. Other highlights include his calling General James Mattis, a right-wing hero, a “good choice” for secretary of defense, a proclamation that all protest voters are rich and white, and yet again placing blame on Nader for electing Bush when Eichenwald voted for Bush.






Mid-December was when Eichenwald really began to lose it. On Dec. 9, he tweeted that people should treat Trump voters with civility and that he was proud of his son for making friends with Trump supporters at college. On Dec. 15, he appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight, where he was easily outclassed by Carlson, a man who was eliminated in the first round of Dancing With the Stars. Carlson, in a segment on the state of journalism, asked Eichenwald to explain his turbulent behavior on Twitter, at which point Eichenwald held up a pre-prepared binder labeled “Tucker Carlson Falsehoods.” Asked for comment on his since-deleted allegation that Donald Trump was institutionalized in 1990, he danced around the question to Carlson’s bemusement. Eichenwald spent the remainder of the nine-minute segment going on various tangents, including a long-winded explanation of a prescription Trump had in 1982 and a story about CIA agents having dinner at Eichenwald’s house.






Later that night, in response to Eichenwald’s television appearance, Twitter user “@Jew_Goldstein” replied to one of Eichenwald’s tweets with a flashing GIF animation overlaid with the text “you deserve a seizure for your posts.” In response, Eichenwald’s wife tweeted that her husband actually had a seizure due to the tweet, and that the user’s information had been forwarded to the Dallas police. In the following days, Eichenwald filed a civil suit and successfully subpoenaed Twitter for the release of @Jew_Goldstein’s personal information. This incident and his impassioned reaction earned Eichenwald more media coverage than he had received since the Justin Berry days. TIME, BBC News, The Washington Post, even Eichenwald’s adversaries at Russian state TV made sure to amplify his grievances. Just over a week later, he was back on MSNBC giving host Jonathan Capehart advice on dealing with Trump: “We have got to stop covering his tweets like they’re news.”






Eichenwald’s 2016 output is a scale model of the failures of the liberal elite. If Eichenwald is the voice of anything, it is of the sickness that plagues the Democratic Party. It’s all there: whitewashing of Bush-era war criminals because they presented mild criticism in anticipation of a Trump loss; a seething hatred of anyone unenthused about center-right technocrats; the portrayal of social media arguments as cataclysmic events; the steadfast refusal to accept that Hillary Clinton lost because she felt entitled to the presidency and decided not to campaign in Michigan, Wisconsin, or rural Pennsylvania; and, last but not least, a fixation on Russian interference with the election, which, at best, explains a small fraction of the loss in Democratic turnout. The only way forward for the Democratic Party is to dump the dead weight — the Iraq War backers, the overrepresented white Baby Boomers, the egotistical social media train wrecks, and, most importantly, anyone with a sex scandal in their Wikipedia article. Let’s start with Kurt Eichenwald.

We contacted Eichenwald for comment. As of press time he had not responded.