this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
1116 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2375 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Something is wrong with this split-screen picture. On one side, former president Donald Trump rants about mass deportations and claims to have stopped "wars with France," after being described by his longest-serving White House chief of staff as a literal fascist. On the other side, commentators debate whether Vice President Kamala Harris performed well enough at a CNN town hall to "close the deal."

...

Let’s review: First, Harris was criticized for not doing enough interviews — so she did multiple interviews, including with nontraditional media. She was criticized for not doing hostile interviews — so she went toe to toe with Bret Baier of Fox News. She was criticized as being comfortable only at scripted rallies — so she did unscripted events, such as the town hall on Wednesday. Along the way, she wiped the floor with Trump during their one televised debate.

Trump, meanwhile, stands before his MAGA crowds and spews nonstop lies, ominous threats, impossible promises and utter gibberish. His rhetoric is dismissed, or looked past, without first being interrogated.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 212 points 1 month ago (7 children)

because most major media supports trump.

[–] [email protected] 130 points 1 month ago (3 children)

You mean the ones whos mega-rich owners are being promised massive tax cuts by trump? Those very same ones?

I'm shocked to my core. I'm glad I was sitting down when I read your comment.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago

But but but there's no direct physical evidence of these major media owners handing giant round bags of cash with big dollar signs on them to trump personally while they twirl their moustaches!!!

Don't you see - we can't know if they support him or not!

/s obvs christ some people on here are russian trolls or steadfastly refuse to understand a goddamned thing

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A lot of them aren't just in it for the tax cuts but because they like the ideology.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What if they disguised their sociopathic greed as ideology?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Imo, when it comes down to it, a lot of them won't give a care what colour their wage slaves are, in much the same way that most of them aren't really Christian or are secretly gay etc.

Imagine having to come out as a non-rascist to your conservative parents

Fuck that

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They make feinting chairs for a reason, after all 🤔

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Fainting is passing out. Feinting is bluffing.

I suppose that poker chairs would be Feinting chairs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Lol my bad 🙃

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And the few sources that may not be owned by Trump-backing Nazis still have to have their horse race. They want to make it seem close to get clicks and sell ads.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago

Trump is the best thing to happen for News Media since 9/11.

And they would do anything to have another 4 years of people obsessively watching/viewing/clicking all day every day to see what insane thing hes done to the country next.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

Weird 34 is their headline-grabbing fat cash cow.

"Moo for us! Cha ching! Yeah!"

[–] azertyfun 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The truth is not better but there's some nuance. Major media do not usually care about being for or against fascism. They care about clicks, and following "journalistic ethics" that boil down to Enlightened Centrism™ and bothsidesism.

Their billionaire owners don't even have to interfere (most of the time). The system self-selects to make money through a shared set of beliefs in what constitutes "proper journalism". This makes journalists, as a profession, ontologically incapable of fighting against fascists. They truly, honestly, firmly believe that "Fascist about to win US Presidency" is not a statement of fact.

It's the same ideological pitfalls that makes Serious Media pit science against whichever anti-science fad is trendy right now. Vaccines, "climatic skepticism", etc. anything goes and the journalists in charge truly genuinely from their heart believe that is a fair and balanced approach.

Not to say there aren't actual conspiracies from time to time of course, but even actual independent traditional journalism has generally failed to accurately report on the rise of fascism.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, they definitely care for Trump to be elected. Major media is owned by oligarchs. Oligarchs support fascism. Plan and simple

[–] azertyfun 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Like most conspiracy theories, there is a huge grain of truth there. Bush should have done 9/11 because it benefitted him in literally every way. Yet he did not.

Today's WaPo scandal illustrates the more real situation quite well: usually the billionaires take a mostly hands-off approach to owning a paper. They don't need to meddle. The journalists are ontologically incapable of being truly disruptive regardless of if the paper is owned by Bezos or funded by an independent government committee. That Bezos presumably felt the need to prevent the WaPo from endorsing Harris was unusual and a big enough deal for the journalists to raise a big stink. And as someone who lives in a country that has a strong tradition of independent and state-funded journalism (that doesn't shy away from criticizing the government)... I can tell you it's not very different from the rest. Certainly not as left-wing as it gets, and just as vulnerable to the fallacies I described.

That is not to say there is no outright corruption of big prestigious papers, or that oligarchs owning the press isn't a massive, glaring threat to Democracy. But beware of oversimplifying such issues. For one because you might regret making such sweeping statements when the billionaires actually decide to wield their power, Murdoch style. And for two because you might be disappointed to find that prestigious independently owned papers aren't so much better. Don't expect them to start printing Marxist pamphlets any time soon if that's what you are into.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

No, we are not talking about Marxist. In fact I said fascists which you keep stesteering away from. Who pays you toispread propaganda?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Fucking propaganda machines.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

...but the magabrained keep telling us that the corporate media is all liberal! Their proof? Supposed polls of the help at those MNCs. I'd like to know in what universe the help determine the direction of a MNC.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Major immediate supports the GOP. This is hardly new or unique to Trump. It’s been like this for decades.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What's new is how far down they're willing to go to continue to do that.

"New" as in - in the last decade. Not like, new new.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

With someone so stupid and weird and gross as donnie, it's become nearly impossible to hide the corporate game.