It was a long piece, and I really did have a lot to say about it myself, but I didn't want to get dragged down dissecting what was so infuriatingly wrong about it. So I appreciated the active comments section.
The #1 thing I didn't say but wanted to say was that contrary to Sulzberger's perverted argument, criticizing the press is not censorship. Criticizing the press is more speech. Trump has been criticizing the press. It is Trump's antagonists who have pursued censorship, for many reasons, including his criticism of the press.
I'm prompted to revisit yesterday's post because I see that Glenn Reynolds is linking to it this morning. He says:
THE NEW CENSORSHIP MUST BE PLAYING BADLY BECAUSE NOW THE NYT AND THE WAPO ARE BLAMING DONALD TRUMP FOR IT. “It has been only eight years since Donald Trump popularized the term ‘fake news’ as a cudgel to dismiss and attack journalism that challenged him.”
Well, if you guys would stop lying so much — *cough* Russian Collusion *cough* — and start reporting actual news *cough* Hunter’s laptop *cough* — maybe he wouldn’t have gotten traction with that. But in fact you’re the guys trying to shut down reporting and opinion that run against your chosen storylines, which are often false. And now that people have noticed you’re trying to shift the blame. Stop trying to pretend that we have healthy, normal institutions. We don’t. You aren’t.
Posts
106 comments:
Like all corporate monoliths, the press hates competition. And that's what they have now because of decades of unforced errors. More people than ever know they're liars now.
People voting with their feet is just as disconcerting to them as it was to the East German Stasi. Mr. Sulzberger, we're tearing down your wall.
The media can't survive, it would seem, when it comes to sharing the media space with X and other free-expression formats. Its compliant audience is shrinking, and its dying a slow death from starvation, which it richly deserves, having squandered its vaunted and oft-declared principles for partisan hackery. Meanwhile, the Free World media has become more specialized, and the menu has expanded in a hyperbolic way to satisfy every conceivable interest.
I found the Eric Weinstein's podcast, which another commenter helpfully posted here somewhere, to be very good - I kept backing it up and re-listening to some passages because I was distracted with other things, and I'll probably listen to the whole thing again. It's long, but not bad at 1.5x. He can be full of himself, but he makes a lot of very insightful contributions.
https://youtu.be/PYRYXhU4kxM
I have progressive friends like Inga, although some probably don't consider me their friend any more because they have the "How can you support this!" attitude towards Trump. My point is, they hold onto the Trump mythology stubbornly, as demonstrated here endlessly. They still believe the "fine people" hoax. One is a highly educated, brilliant woman who I was once close to marrying, but she insisted to me via X that she "saw Trump say it with my own eyes." She doesn't care that she "saw" an edited video that left out the context. She doesn't care that Snopes (finally) debunked it. On the Left side of the political spectrum, perhaps even encroaching on the middle, are many Americans who will always believe Trump fomented an insurrection, used Russian help to get elected, interfered in the 2020 election results, created the Obama birth certificate controversy (because he's a racist of course) and called the people who dies invading Normandy "suckers and losers."
The don't need evidence. They have their belief. And the #fakenews DNC-Media exists in large part to use its vast infrastructure to support and reinforce these beliefs. It is actually the only infrastructure progressives have built since the Hoover Dam. And it's just as durable. And the beliefs it validates are just as concrete.
Sulzberger knows his place. He's delighted to help. They all are. None of them care that they have ruined journalism and are well on their way to ruining "our democracy."
I've written it before but will repeat: The "Press" - AKA the traditional/main-stream Press - are for-profit organizations. Part of their marketing spin was that they balanced, fair, and were an important institution of a democracy, and the source of truthful (i.e. vetted) information. But that was always marketing spin. They were, above all, only in it for the money. They still are.
But what has changed is that nobody will win viewers by truly being balanced and accurate. You must now win viewers by picking a segment of society and appealing to their vanity and pride by a mix of flattery that appeals to their vanity and scaremongering that appeals to their fears. In other words, ABC, CBS, and NBC aren't "supporters" of the democratic party any more than IHOP are supporters of pancake eaters. the democratic party members are their target viewing audience, for the sole purpose of capturing and converting those democratic eyeballs to money. Nothing more and nothing less.
View all decisions as though you were in the chair of the media CFO, and it will all become simpler to understand.
9/6/24, 8:14 AM
The bias is not new. I was calling the Des Moines Register "Pravda on the Racoon" back in the 1980s. The anti-Republican slant, even in the news stories (especially selection thereof) was a given.
Reynolds has the right idea. What has changed is the willingness to print outright falsehoods and completely unverifiable information. This has morphed over time from simply ignoring interpretations favorable to Republicans to "reporting the controversy" and has now become printing little more than press releases from anonymous sources.
I'm sure they would keep hyperbanning any personalities to the right of Hillary Clinton, but there are a number of problems with that:
1) In an environment of rising interest rates, most information companies have to be vaguely profitable.
2) Joe Rogan, Theo Von, and a host of other personalities are proving to be much more popular than corporate sources- or Conservative Incorporated, the grifters who have proved much less popular than President Trump.
3) The presence of Rumble,Twitter, and alternative platforms makes total control impossible.
4) None of this would matter if establishment puppets like Macron and Trudeau were popular. They are not. But at least they are considerably more intelligent than Kamablah, though so is a housecat.
I think you're largely correct. Globalism created a lot of very comfortable arrangements, and a lot of very appealing fantasies like the US becoming a quasi-Disneyland of clean attractive suburbs and touristy destinations (without the messy tourists, of course).
Globalism is simply going away. It was always a security policy for the United States related the Cold War, not an economic policy, and without the Cold War the cost is simply unsustainable (This is, in no small part, what's driving the "Russia Russia Russia" paranoia)
The main difference between the two parties right now is that the Uniparty Democrats and RINOs are fully on board with pushing the fiction that we can maintain Globalism as it was in the 1990s if we just wish hard enough, and the Trumpian populist GOP is willing to smash the ruins of Globalism.
What is driving all this madness on the Democratic and formerly Republican side, as if they were a country under mortal attack?
My theory is that we are failing to appreciate how much money (income, profit, wealth) depends upon a continuation of our currently well-established trade and immigration policies. The sums are truly astonishing, amounting to trillions of dollars annually, most of which is threatened if Trump has his way.
We are talking here about the collective influence of the ten or twelve thousand wealthiest families in America, the so-called donor class, who bankroll both political parties and control all the major institutions in our society, including the press and the punditry itself.
The sad truth is that as a collective these families (most of them unknown to the public care more about their fortunes than the welfare of the American people or even the Constitution of the United States.
I know that is a terrible thing to say. Maybe I am wrong about this. But does anyone have a better theory? Capitalism unbound doesn't care about the well-being of any particular polity or state. And never did.
The media needs to look in the mirror and put the blame where it belongs....ON THEM. They have been spreading DISINFORMATION....MISINFORMATION or whatever they claim the right has been doing and getting caught in the act for years, and they pretend everything THEY did, is what is being done to them. I will stop calling them progressives because what the really are, are regressive hypocrites. They hate that what they have done is making people see that all they are, is an arm of the lying Regressive Hypocrites.
Trump was calling for “retribution” against news outlets that were criticizing him. How quickly we forget.
“Former President Donald Trump‘s attacks on the media are central to his image, but he’s once again calling on the federal government to take action against NBCUniversal for its MSNBC criticism of him.
In a late night post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump complained that MSNBC “uses FREE government approved airwaves, and yet it is nothing but a 24 hour hit job” on him and “the Republican party for the purposes of ELECTION INTERFERENCE.”
While Trump’s Truth Social post was one of many, many outbursts at the news media, his suggestion of government retaliation, something that would surely raise a First Amendment challenge, also comes as many of his allies and others on the right chide tech platforms for censorship over their content moderation practices.“
https://deadline.com/2023/11/donald-trump-msnbc-comcast-censorship-1235642223/
iNag, Trump called for "retribution" against news outlets because they were lying about him. Baldfacedly. Still are, and you love every ounce of tainted kibble they put in your dog bowl.
“Trump has made it very clear that he doesn’t stand for the freedom of the press. As a presidential candidate, he told supporters he would “open up our libel laws” to sue journalists. “We’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before,” he promised.”
https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/donald-trump-thinks-freedom-press-disgusting
So what do you think is the solution, censorship? People here are upset because Sulzberger suggests that it’s Trump who might be the cause for increased censorship around the world. Maybe he’s right.
Lol. Not more, LESS. Less all the way around. The free market is deciding anyway. People - except you and those like you - are leaving, and the suggestion that Trump was the cause of censorship by a MSM that has given literal (T)rillions in in-kind free editorial press to democrats for decades is downright farcical.
Oh no...
Suing liars...
Not that...
Anything but that!
Trump has plans…
“The four-time indicted, twice-impeached disgraced former president, Donald Trump, who admitted Tuesday that he will govern as a “dictator” on “day one” should he win office again, is overtly vowing to weaponize government and seek retribution against the news media, showing no regard for the First Amendment protections afforded to the Fourth Estate.
In a particularly disturbing conversation this week, Trump’s former top political strategist, Steve Bannon, and former National Security Council adviser, Kash Patel, openly discussed plans to target the press. Bannon, who underscored that such promises are “not just rhetoric” and that they are “absolutely dead serious” about seeking revenge against journalists, asked Patel, who would likely serve in a second Trump administration, whether he could “deliver the goods.” Patel responded affirmatively, vowing that a re-empowered Trump would indeed “come after” the press.
In a particularly disturbing conversation this week, Trump’s former top political strategist, Steve Bannon, and former National Security Council adviser, Kash Patel, openly discussed plans to target the press. Bannon, who underscored that such promises are “not just rhetoric” and that they are “absolutely dead serious” about seeking revenge against journalists, asked Patel, who would likely serve in a second Trump administration, whether he could “deliver the goods.” Patel responded affirmatively, vowing that a re-empowered Trump would indeed “come after” the press.
“I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States, they and others of the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events,” Trump declared in September, adding that he believes the press “should pay a big price” for supposedly hurting the country.“
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/media/trump-threatens-retribution-against-press/index.html
Scrutinizing the press? OMG, that sounds worse than co-opting 99% of them into acting as campaign operatives for one party. Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
So I'm gathering that Inga is cool with a press that continually lies about people and events on one side of the political divide.
IANAL. But I am given to understand that, in the case of libel and slander, truth is a defense (for the person or organization being accused of libel or slander). Doesn't that imply that UNtruth is a valid reason for a suit to be brought? The presumption of innocence remains, but if the accuser - let's say Trump - can produce evidence that the accused - say, ABC - is in fact lying about him or an event in which he participated, should the accused not lose that case?
The fact that an assertion is made by "the press" does not mean that the assertion is true.
Do you understand that, Inga? Or is it, somehow, fascist to question the veracity of a press assertion?
Aggie said (emphasis added), "Its compliant audience is shrinking, and its dying a slow death from starvation, which it richly deserves, having squandered its vaunted and oft-declared principles for partisan hackery."
I'd like to amplify and elucidate those bolded parts. The NYT is dying less slowly than its peers because it enjoys a very lucrative online subscription presence and its pride of place among the professional class. It's motto "All the news that's fit to print" used to be taken literally and seriously by the publisher and editors and many of us who held the NYT in the highest professional esteem. I perhaps held it in even higher regard than Althouse at one time.
As the editor of our High School newspaper, we were taught journalistic principles and the NYT was the gold standard (of course my highly decorated and well-respected teacher either did not know or elided the Walter Duranty ethical lapses). We literally used the NYT stylebook as our own guide for what to capitalize (back then the POTUS was the only version of "president" get a capital P), how to punctuate, what to do about "widows and orphans" in typesetting.
It was simply understood they leaned Democrat. They were founded at a time when newspapers all over the country routinely advertised their party preference in names that included "Democrat" or "Republican" in their names. Nobody denied there was an editorial preference, but the news side was supposedly in the Joe Friday tradition of "just the facts." The fall of the Times into outright propaganda and open partisan opinion within news stories still disappoints me, long after the bloom came off the rose. I feel like Mrs. Beeson is turning over in her grave at the fall from grace of the vaunted NYT.
Their momentum and Carlos Slim will keep them alive longer than their former peers who are dead or dying faster. But they will likely never regain their reputation for being the gold standard of journalism. Open partisan publications competing for eyeballs would be preferable to the charade that we have "impartial" news sources presently. Maybe that's why the WSJ has survived the digital transition as well as the HYT has. Even though like the Times, the "news" pages in the WSJ are full of opinions in sharp contrast to the editorial pages.
"“The ACLU has made it very clear that it doesn’t stand for the freedom of the press or the first amendment."
There. FIFY.
Trump, as well as any other American can and have sued. Questioning the veracity of the news isn’t a problem. Using government power as Trump threatens to is, do you understand that?
"Or is it, somehow, fascist to question the veracity of a press assertion?"
To the cohort of the American population that only believes in consensus, pedigree, class, and unanimity that is exactly what they believe. That cohort quite literally understand that the press represents "your betters". That they've done their homework. That they're not sloppy. That they would never lie. They came from top notch schools where they all know and socialized and helped each other's career advancement and it's an impossibility that they would collude with each other to unify a message against someone or something that threatens their survival.
They're not humans, but paragons of endless virtue fighting against wrongthink and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dirty prole trying to upset the applecart because they're greedy. The press aren't greedy of course...they are "your betters". Believe them!
Trump’s number one enemy, the free press.
“Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to weaponize the federal government during a second administration by pursuing revenge, retaliation and retribution against his political enemies. Trump’s attitude can be summed up in one Truth Social post from August, 2023: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”
Trump is forecasting clearly that a possible second Trump presidency will be sharply focused on revenge, including weaponization of the federal government against political opponents, judges, former presidents and others.”
Ok, back matcha - do you understand that Harris's statement that, for instance, Musk should no longer enjoy the "privilege" of freedom of speech is a hell of a bigger encroachment on the First Amendment than Trump's floating the idea that the press could be sued for spreading lies - by anyone, including the government, if the lies being spread are about them? Or should the government have no recourse against a malignant press?
I myself prefer that the press, the so-called Fourth Estate, be kept honest, and since it is not checked by the Constitution the way the government as a whole and each branch separately is, suit seems the appropriate remedy - versus prior restraint as Harris is encouraging.
Ok, back matcha - do you understand that Harris's statement that, for instance, Musk should no longer enjoy the "privilege" of freedom of speech is a hell of a bigger encroachment on the First Amendment than Trump's floating the idea that the press could be sued for spreading lies - by anyone, including the government, if the lies being spread are about them? Or should the government have no recourse against a malignant press?
I myself prefer that the press, the so-called Fourth Estate, be kept honest, and since it is not checked by the Constitution the way the government as a whole and each branch separately is, suit seems the appropriate remedy - versus prior restraint as Harris is encouraging.
CREW
Orange Man is the origin of all things bad. Nixon never sent Agnew around the country to rant about the "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism".
Inga, please get help. You are starting your delusion much too early...I think you may have a stroke caused by your hatred of a man who is trying to Make America Great Again, and YOU don't want that...you want violence and chaos. Grow up.
I gave you a gift link to read the whole thing in what was my first post of the day
The gift didn't work for me. Unless it was just prompting me to sign up for the free article.
Journalists Against Free Speech (JAFS) are an unexpected 21st century development. But not when you consider that the dominant culture will always try to limit speech. The Left is enjoying their dominance.
Trump is right. Libel laws, especially regarding public figures, amount to a license to lie. It is not just appropriate, it is necessary, for the media to do some basic fact checking if they want the protections afforded under Times v. Sullivan.
(Now I see that's exactly what I was being asked to do. Never mind.)
Why are we making this about Trump? Brazil banning x has nothing to do with Trump. The telegram guy getting arrested has nothing to do with Trump. The Corporate press clutching their pearls over fake threats to journalists is just a power play on their part for audience capture. Problem is too many people see the truth.
Inga is hilarious with her criticism of Trump's intent to go after the press for their lies, in some lawfare type of way, if he is elected again. While I dispute her version of Trump's intent, it is ironic as that is all the Biden DOJ has done in its false indictments of Trump. More complaining about what Republicans MIGHT do while the DEMS are doing it right now.
Here are the three ways that Trump can "go after the press", all of them legal:
1. If the media companies are violating any existing laws, make the appropriate agencies do their jobs and rein them in with appropriate penalties. They still have a recourse if they disagree.
2. Libel and slander are both actions in which you can sue for civil damages against the LYING LEGACY MEDIA. Inga, in her ignorance, forgets that Trump is already suing ABC for falsely accusing him, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, of being a felon convicted of rape. Other conservatives are also suing, as well as citizens who were lied about by the Fake News Media -- like Nick Sandman. Hopefully, Sullivan v NYT will be overturned, at least in part.
3. The use of the bully pulpit when DJT is elected is the way that Trump can continue to "go after the press" and continue to sway public opinion against the gaslighting, double-standard, and flat out lying about things that are easily disproved if you are not afflicted with TDS. You do realize, Inga, that a vast number of people in this country either hate the media (for good reason) or think less of it due to their bias and partisanship in "reporting" news stories. I have no problem shaming local news reporters and TV anchors who engage in that activity, calling them out, and asking if they are not ASHAMED of being a member of the Fake News Media. This is no time for niceties.
It's worse than I thought. Not only are people in 70 countries around the world criticizing the media, they're also riding down escalators. Next thing you know they'll be eating taco salads on Cinco de Mayo.
For most of the 20th century, the media--publishers and news producers-- were the "intellectuals" who promoted the PR of their faction of the state. That broke when blogs allowed actual those the publishers gatekept to skip over the fence. This blog and Instapundit gave professors a direct line to people, commenters with experience and knowledge could offer refutation of media assertions, etc. It's been near a quarter century and the gatekeeper "intellectuals" have been reeling. Trump just named them which stripped away their last vestige of "respectability".
As we've seen many in government or positions of power are now striking back against the loss of their opinion makers.
For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the “intellectuals.” For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the “opinion-molders” in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear.
It is evident that the State needs the intellectuals; it is not so evident why intellectuals need the State. Put simply, we may state that the intellectual’s livelihood in the free market is never too secure; for the intellectual must depend on the values and choices of the masses of his fellow men, and it is precisely characteristic of the masses that they are generally uninterested in intellectual matters. The State, on the other hand, is willing to offer the intellectuals a secure and permanent berth in the State apparatus; and thus a secure income and the panoply of prestige. For the intellectuals will be handsomely rewarded for the important function they perform for the State rulers, of which group they now become a part.-
-Murray Rothbard, 'The Anatomy of the State'
Where are you getting "weaponize the federal government" from "I'M COMING AFTER YOU"? Tends to be your side that uses government power to punish personal enemies - Trump acts as a private citizen.
So, projection from your source, as usual.
Glenn is bolder than you.
He published the day-old link, but offers an opinion.
You play it safe like a lady, and wait to see which way the wind is blowing before chiming in... "Yeah, and I agree with the guy law prof!" Male/female like that. Nttawwt, you raised two boys as a single mum, so there's that... ;-)
Btw? The "gift links" aren't really...
THey require an email address, and if you've ever subscribed before, they are not free but pop up with a "resubscribe to read this" request for a credit card to match the email you've entered...
Hth. You are trying to share something for "free", not shill for WaPo, I presume?
@Inga
"“I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States, they and others of the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events,” Trump declared in September, adding that he believes the press “should pay a big price” for supposedly hurting the country."
Hey Inga, I'm already voting for Trump, you don't have to sell him to me.
Oh, and this is for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6HnqV6jzTU
You cannot refute the monster that's been created inside someone's head with any amount of contrary evidence. Point to anything, and if it disagrees with what already 'exists', then it'll be denigrated and discarded, usually angrily.
When emotions get involved, rationality, reason, and perspective can get ejected violently.
Then there's the concept of politics as a team spectator sport. You root for YOUR team, put down the other, no matter how the team is actually performing. I've seen this so many times over the years, but the best example was when Obama and Hillary were running in '07-'08. Guy on line was a total Hillary fan. Couldn't say enough good about her, or enough bad about Obama. He had a whole litany about why she was the better candidate and he'd be terrible.
Obama got the nod at the convention, and overnight he switched to full-throated Obama support. The team had spoken, and he was not going to trust his own thoughts and opinions when it was so important to trust the team, and he was going to support the team.
The people who insist that Trump will go full Stalin on day one won't change their opinion. They'll insist that THEY are the only ones who're right, and it turns into a team exercise. And they'll never go against the team...
So explain how Trump's desire to change defamation laws to make it easier to sue corresponds with "free speech".
They are obsessed with their shrinking market share and haven't noticed how much it has shrunk.
That was my point above.
Trump called for "retribution" against news outlets because they were lying about him.
Even if were true, and I doubt you can provide much evidence that the mainstream media was "baldfacedly" lying about him, so what? He should not use the power of the government to punish free speech.
I understand that Wordle is a major reason the NYT is saying afloat. Imagine that: the game subsidiary is keeping the so-called news organization alive. If that is the case, then you can bet that the CFO is looking for how to get the news subsidiary to drive more users to the games platform. Or put differently, the New York Times as a news reporting operation exists only to drive numbers and revenue to the games.
Freder said: So explain how Trump's desire to change defamation laws to make it easier to sue corresponds with "free speech".
Easy. He plans to lobby Congress to change the laws and/or have a test case go to SCOTUS to overturn Sullivan. Slander, Libel, Defamation -- used to have reasonable limits vs Freedom of Speech. Sullivan changed that and since then, the Media has gotten away with Lies, Lies, and more Lies. If a private citizen cannot libel someone and get away with it, why should the press be any different? The NYT is going to lose in Palin's suit against them. Don't present untruths as facts to further your political agenda and you will be fine. There is always enough real stuff to debate and criticize.
I occasionally will see a Biden video where there could be a reasonable explanation for the way he walked, sat down, talked or ignored people. Even though I despise him, in those cases I feel there are enough open-and-shut cases of dementia-appearing behavior that it is not necessary to combine them with shaky interpretations. I leave that behavior to the Left.
I'm sorry to see you put so much effort into these comments as no one here believes a word of them. I guess the effort is good for old women with nothing to do.
OMG! Libel laws are "censorship. Who duv thunk it ?
The Tim Pool/Tenet Media story is obviously fascinating.
But...
An FBI affidavit unsealed this week says the Russians are maintaining an active list of 2,800 influencers, 600 of whom are in the US
https://www.wired.com/story/project-good-old-usa-russia-2024-election/
600 American influencers on Russia's list.The FBI has not released the list.
Who else is on it?
The dullard is mind reading again.
Um…no. Reading comprehension slipping?
"Don't present untruths as facts to further your political agenda and you will be fine."
I think (hope) the Russian Collusion Hoax was a tipping point.
I would certainly welcome some more accountability for the press, though how you get there is tricky. You have to ask yourself, though, given what the press has become how much would we lose? It's not like they're the defenders of democracy they make themselves out to be.
You idiot. libel suits are defended with truth. If no truth, the liar pays. It has nothing to do with free speech.
You ?
Should be interesting to see if the list is released to the public. I had to chuckle at reading that Tucker Carlson’s grocery store trip in Russia wasn’t aired on Tenet Media because their producers said the segment “wasn't subtle enough” for a Russian influence operation.
The problem is that the NYT's, and 95 percent of the MSM, march in lockstep to push "the Left Establishment Partyline" - trump gets 90 negative coverage, Biden/Harris get 90 percent positive coverage. The MSM is also on the side of the leftwing censors of social media and hates Elon Musk.
Accordingly, the NYT/MSM gets criticized. Sulzberger has no intention of defending the MSM behavior, he just counter-attacks and calls any criticizism of the Press "Censorship". He's not going to give one Goddamn inch.
"So what do you think is the solution, censorship?" The only people pushing that idea are on the leftist progressive side, Inga - your side. The only people standing up for Free Speech, uncensored, are the people you harangue every day, like right now.
How about having news programs and media that tells the truth because they think that's the right thing to do? How about holding themselves to a higher standard than 'partisan bullsh*t 1000% of the time'? Stack that against the 'Russia-Russia-Russia', 'Trump Dossier', 'Hunter Biden Laptop', '51 Intelligence professionals', 'Unnamed officials from the White House' Niagara Falls leaking epidemic that was unleashed, not by Trump, but against him.
It's painfully obvious that 'honesty' didn't occur to you as an option to be chosen.
According to the DOJ indictment.
The old geezer can’t figure it out.
I guess old geezers like you have nothing better to do than troll the comments sections.
Recently reread Caro's Master of the Senate and currently rereading Passage of Power about LBJ's years as VP. I am currently about at the section about the 1960 convention in the chapter about LBJ's selection for VP. What a messy process conventions used to be when there were few primaries.
In any event, one of the things that struck me in both books is how closely involved Phillip Graham was with LBJ. Graham was the publisher and, effectively, owner of the the Washington Post.
Graham was much more than just an acquaintance or even friend of LBJ. He was an integral part of LBJs team. He was in the hotel bedroom with Lady Bird, LBJ, Bobby Kennedy and nobody else when the VP deal was being negotiated. Lots of other examples in both books of him talking to people on LBJs behalf over the years.
If anyone wants to complain about the loss of objectivity in the media, I say you are naive. There has never, in 300 years or so, been objectivity. There didn't even used to be the myth of objectivity. Newspapers were explicitly identified as "Republican" or "Democrat" Many in their very name. "The Podunk Democrat Star" or "The Garett County Republican"
In Halberstam's great 1976 book about newspapers he quotes Otis(?) Chandler, the publisher/owner as saying something like "The only way any Democrat will get mentioned in our papers is if they buy an ad."
In Lynne Olsen's book "Citizens of London" about St Edward of Murrow and his apostles at CBS London Bureau she quotes him as saying something like "My main job is to get America into the war." This in 1940 or so.
Pulitzer and Hearst in the 19th century made no pretensions about their partisanship.
And so on.
It is only in the last 30-40 years that the media has been gaslighting us with this pretense of objectivity.
John Henry
Inga just wants to make sure the people who printed Russian Collusion lies are free to continue lying because she is just a dishonest person at the core of her being.
Katherine graham might have had her husband killed to get at the prize and to get back at the adultery with robin webb
Inga openly supports censorship of people she disagrees with.
But she believes the people who printed Russian Collusion lies for 6 years should not face consequences for their actions.
She is just a terrible and dishonest person.
"When the fake news becomes my truth, print the fake news"
Newspaper publisher in Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.
I edited that lightly edited, he called it legend. But it was clear he meant fake news about Stewart's character killing Liberty Valence. Then riding that fake news to the governorship and later US Senate.
John Henry
Companies that post known and obvious lies like the Russian Collusion Hoax or Hunter's Laptop being Russian Disinformation or that J6 protestors killed capitol police officers should face consequences for defamation and obvious damage done to society.
They are evil and that activity should not be tolerated in a free high trust society.
The same DOJ/FBI that conspired with the Hillary Clinton campaign to generate the Russian Collusion hoax have another Russian Collusion hoax to sell.
Shockingly it targets the people critical of the Regime.
Even more shockingly the idiots who feel for the first hoax are falling for this hoax too.
Newspapers used to make huge profits selling classified ads.
Craig Newmark came along with Craig's List and started competing. He did OK and offered to sell the business to the SF Chronicle for something like $50,000.
They were not interested, figuring he could not compete with their tried and true classified model. After all, it had worked for 100 years, it would work for another 100.
A few years ago Newmark turned down something like $8-10bn from Google. The Chronicle no longer runs classified. Nor makes any money.
Ditto, Sulzberger's NYT. They make most of their money renting billboard space on their empty building on Time's Square.
John Henry
In the mid-70s Senator Frank Church held hearings on the CIA's involvment in the news business in the US. Mostly illegal involvement. It was shockingly broad and deep. CIA said they would stop, they never did
I wonder what percentage of US journalists are getting money from the CIA today? My guess (he said without evidence) is 50-75% and I view the news with that in mind.
I view the news as little as possible, in general.
John Henry
"In other words, ABC, CBS, and NBC aren't "supporters" of the democratic party any more than IHOP are supporters of pancake eaters. the democratic party members are their target viewing audience, for the sole purpose of capturing and converting those democratic eyeballs to money. Nothing more and nothing less."
How did it become that way? It did because the personnel at the three networks were already tilted left. The three broadcast networks were slanted even when they still had to appeal to a mass audience. Eventually, their right-leaning audience drifted away. But even today, older people still watch the three broadcast networks' news programs. They aren't watching because of their political beliefs, but out of habit, and they are picking up a lot of propaganda and believing it.
It was similar with CNN's airport audiences. Neither they, nor the airport execs were demanding CNN's view of the world, but they were getting it anyway. CNN and MSNBC do compete for Democrat eyeballs, but the personnel there are also convinced believers in the liberal-progressive view of the world.
He was in the hotel bedroom with Lady Bird, LBJ, Bobby Kennedy and nobody else when the VP deal was being negotiated.
Just to be clear, he was not in the room as a journalist or publisher, he was in the room as LBJ's political advisor.
John Henry
Inga said
I guess old geezers like us have nothing better to do than troll the comments sections.
FIFY
John "Old Geezer" Henry
Trump was in office for four years. That was plenty of time for him to go after his opponents. And he did so -- in tweets and "truths." Strange as it may be, he's not as Machiavellian, power-hungry, vindictive, or dictatorial as people who've been in "public service" their whole lives long.
Inga said
Trump’s attitude can be summed up in one Truth Social post from August, 2023: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”
Geeze, Inga. I already support the guy, you don't need to sell me.
If President Trump, or anyone, wanted retribution against the press, they could do it easily.
1) Set up a website with pages for each media outlet: WaPo, NYT, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News etc
2) List all advertisers of each outlet by previous month's ad spend
3) Provide a mailing address for the CEO of each outlet.
4) Encourage individuals to write letters to advertisers expressing their feelings about the media they are advertising.
It doesn't take much, a few hundred will get their attention. A few thousand will send them looking for other outlets.
If President Trump wants retribution, he could revoke the law permitting consumer advertising of prescription drugs. I think he can do this by executive order.
What percentage of TV ads would be banned by this? I don't watch much TV, other than being in the room doing other stuff when my wife is. My impression is that about 50% of all advertising is prescription pharma ads. Maybe that would get their attention.
And it might get them covering the pharma companies honestly.
Everyone knows that Purdue Pharma got fined $3.5BN for its role in the Oxycontin schlemozzle. There were even 2 miniseries made about it. Purdue spent very little on TV advertising.
How many people know that Johnson & Johnson settled, essentially the same thing with their brand of Oxycontin? Instead of $3.5bn, they settled for over $20bn.
Probably just a coincidence that they got little coverage AND they spend huge amounts of advertising on TV.
A bit of retribution might be a good thing.
John Henry
"Trump was in office for four years. That was plenty of time for him to go after his opponents. And he did so -- in tweets and "truths.""
As was so often the case, Trump talked, democrats acted. We have the depositions in Missouri vs Biden to inform us.
And don't forget the Biden administration's blatant attempt at censorship through DHS's ill-fated "Misinformation Panel", headed by Nina Jankowicz.
And Jankowicz sued Fox News for defamation!. As was her right.
"On Monday, the case was dismissed. But Chief Judge Colm Connolly didn’t just say it was legally unfounded — he demolished the claims of figures like Jankowicz that they are really not engaged in censorship."
So don't lecture us, Inga, about Trump using government power to silence his political foes. When it happens, a lot of us here will be condemning it. Why don't you address the government censorship that has already happened by the current administration?
No OM, I don’t agree that a lot of you would condemn it, you would make excuses for why it was warranted. I understand you wanting to think it would be condemned, but the reality is it won’t be. We’ve seen plenty of things Trump has done that had previously been condemned when other public figures did them, but when done by Trump, his followers consistently gave and continue to give him a pass.
Yes, I’m old, but probably at least 15 years younger than you and the other old geezer. Nothing really wrong with being an old geezer, unless you are the type that stands in his doorway yelling at passers by that step on his lawn.
"No OM, I don’t agree that a lot of you would condemn it, you would make excuses for why it was warranted."
Inga said, without evidence.
Why don't you address what the Biden administration HAS done? Go ahead, Inga, read it. Show some intellectual curiosity.
Nobody has mentioned Starlink, although Musk did earlier today in a Twix. He said that they now have over 7,000 satellites in orbit. He also mentioned that 2/3 of all active satellites are currently Starlink.
Govt could shoot them down, though with 7,000 that is a lot of shooting. They might be able to jam them, not sure how easy/hard that is technically.
Absent that, Starlink seems like the ultimate free speech platform. Govt could seize all US servers and hardware but I would bet that there are backups around the world.
In Brazil they seized Starlink bank accounts and people can't pay for their service. But Musk is not cutting their service. X is working on payment systems so in a year or two it may not even be possible for a govt to stop the money flows.
I don't know much about all the technical ins and outs but I am watching Brazil and how that plays out. My impression is that Musk and Starlink, as well as X, may be immune to govt. Or will be in a year or two.
I am generally in favor but I can certainly see a downside as well.
John Henry
It's just this war and that sonofabitch Trump!
I agree about the wealthy families. All have gone left as the creators of the wealth die off. The Trust Fund Babies survive and endorse lefty policies.
Inga, I would not call Feeder a "geezer." That's rude.
Well, at least Sulzberger is an improvement over A.M. Rosenthal. Now that guy could lie in the Times until the cows came home.
"He said that they now have over 7,000 satellites in orbit. He also mentioned that 2/3 of all active satellites are currently Starlink."
OT: They've really become a nuisance for astronomical observing.
Name one, dullard.
Good point, John Henry. The Church Committee unfortunately did some damage by over-reach, letting off some terrorists who should have been prosecuted anyway in local jurisdictions,but they were right about the media. Heck, there are dozens of cbi-chi colleges and universities where everyone is seen as a potential CIA catch.
Transference is the unconscious redirection of feelings from past relationships onto a current relationship.
Projection is a defense mechanism where a person attributes their own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, or qualities to someone else.
Inga, who hurt you?
I hope you get sued by Harris under Trumps new, improved, defamation rules. Musk didn't even own Twitter when that comment was made (2019).
When I say Old Geezer here, everyone knows it’s you doc.
Steve, who died and made you the new troll? We already have a few, don’t need anymore.
John Henry: I keep saying Musk is a real-life Bond villain!
I think he should make the following announcement: “If I don’t get to follow my daily routine, several catastrophic things will happen. I dont’t know what they are, and I don’t know what thing or combination of things in my routine keeps them from happening. I just know that if I die unexpectedly, or even if I spend a single night in jail, many very bad things will happen. No one person, including me, knows how this failsafe works. You might be able to figure it out by analyzing all my communications from the last several years, and interviewing my associates, plus their associates. But would you be able to do it in a day?”
JSM
Really i thought abe was a straight up guy compared to his successors
Trump is forecasting clearly that a possible second Trump presidency will be sharply focused on revenge, including weaponization of the federal government against political opponents, judges, former presidents and others.
Good. Get some revenge for me too, Don. Make them hurt. They deserve it.
Trump wasn't calling for censorship. He was saying that public money shouldn't be used to support biased reporting.
BTW, you do realize that the minute you devolve into insults and name calling, you've just admitted to losing the argument.
Dullard, that was a joke. Aside from being stupid, you have no sense of humor.
I am a proud geezer, too. But I have no time for old cat ladies spreading lies.
When it happens, a lot of us here will be condemning it.
I highly doubt that. You will be thrilled. Achilles will claim it is not enough (he would like to send all Democratics--and apparently Dick and Liz Cheney--to concentration camps, or alternately hang them from lamp posts).
"I highly doubt that. You will be thrilled."
I don't give a damn what you doubt. There arepeople who are guided by principle, not politics. That you can't imagine it is sad.
New York Times vs. Sullivan is yet another typical bad Brennan Supreme Court decision that should be overturned and/or modified. It invented out of the whole cloth the "actual malice" standard for "public figures." It is yet another example of the Brennan Court writing its own legislation rather than interpreting the Constitution. And if there is to be an "actual malice" standard at all, it should be for public OFFICIALS, not just any "public figures," because the definition of public "figures" is one of those vague and ever-shifting terms that makes most of these cases impossible for normal people to use to restore their falsely (and that is the key point) injured reputations. The idea that having to be accurate in what you say publicly about another person is a "chilling effect" was always bullshit. The decision was made because Brennan didn't like the idea that juries in Southern states might convict Northern newpapers for saying negative things about officials regardless of actual truth. That might have been a legitimate worry FOR LEGISLATORS, but unelected judges had no business drafting a rules to manage trade-offs.
Inga
"I guess old geezers like you have nothing better to do than troll the comments sections."
Said the old trout without a hint of irony. It is to giggle.
Post a Comment