Tag Archives: old media

Breaking News: History Repeats Itself

18 Monday Nov 2024

Posted by in media criticism, social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

…Each of us have four choices once the Trump regime takes power in January: 1) Resist, 2) Silence, 3) Flight, 4) Collaborate…

“Obey in Advance”

Some people are going to choose collaboration.

This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brezinski reported they made a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago. I immediately changed the channel.

On social media:

Jeff (Gutenberg Parenthesis) Jarvis ‪@jeffjarvis.bsky.social‬
Oh, Lord. Joe and Mika went to Mar-a-lago. “What we did agree on,” Mika said, “was to restart communications.” Access. “He seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats.” Credulity. They revert to their mean.
[….]
November 18, 2024 at 5:14 AM

Jeff Jarvis continued:

Mika: “We know this will be a consequential presidency. The question is whether it will be constructive. It will take a new approach from all sides from both parties and a leader who can bring them together and only time will tell whether Donald Trump is that leader.” Yeesh.

“Don’t be mistaken: We’re not here to normalize Donald Trump,” Joe says after having done just that. “Obey in advance.

Meacham pontificates on patriotism and nationalism. “Nationalism is a loyalty to people who are already in your tribe, in your clan, with a ‘c’.” That he had to clarify the spelling while getting it wrong. This is white, christian nationalism with a ‘k’.

Of course, there is no one on the panel to ask, “How the fuck could you?” as we all are at home. No Glaude, Molly Jong Fast, not even a Heileman. Instead, Ignatius and Meacham fall over their fumfering rhetoric in obeisance to this betrayal of MSNBC colleagues and us.

I’ll bet Comcast bosses are happy with them. It’s a Republican company. That is what makes the betrayal to colleagues all the worse, as some MSNBC hosts are all we have left in a field strewn with the #BrokenTimes, #BrokenPost, #BrokenCNN, #BrokenNPR, #MurdochJournal
.
The Scarborough doctrine: “You can’t root against the president of the United States without rooting against America.” He won’t root against authoritarianism, racism, misogyny (against his own wife), fascism. He won’t root for the people and our Constitution. There you have it.

Was there any journalism to come out of this? No. The meeting was “on background.” Joe assures they asked for an interview. Of course, they did: giving Trump just what he wants–airtime and attention. This is how they helped get him elected in the first place.

Right after that pathetic display, Mika reads headlines about attacks on LGBTQ people and Trump drawing up a list of military officers to court martial and there is no nod to the irony. Oh, yes, let’s get along–with the destruction of the nation.

I try to envision [Joy Anne Reid], [Rachel Maddow], Lawrence, Nicolle Wallace, [Chirs Hayes] and others watching Joe and Mika’s betrayal this morning. Did they throw coffee at their TVs or merely shake their heads, knowingly?

[emphasis added]

“[….] Rule #4: Be outraged. If you follow Rule #1 and believe what the autocrat-elect is saying, you will not be surprised. But in the face of the impulse to normalize, it is essential to maintain one’s capacity for shock. This will lead people to call you unreasonable and hysterical, and to accuse you of overreacting. It is no fun to be the only hysterical person in the room. Prepare yourself. [….]” – Masha Gessen – Autocracy: Rules for Survival – November 19, 2016

Some of the responses to Jeff Jarvis:

Timothy Snyder “Do not obey in advance”

Joe and Mika: “Actually, we think we will”.

Were they scared he would come for them. It’s pathetic

I changed the channel

Jesus on a 3 legged blind poodle. I just turned off Morning Joe. Just how fucking stupid are they? Who in their right goddamn mind thinks Hair Furor Donald is suddenly going to become reasonable & bipartisan & listen to/work w/Dems?

This is why I haven’t watched the show since the election.

I’m done with them

Trump: MSDNC are traitors and must be put against the wall

MSNBC: The question is whether the wall can absorb the bullets properly, and the guns are maintained efficiently.

WTF morning Joe are you in drugs… definitely I won’t be watching you nor msnbc if you keep talking about unity with this morons. After all the thing they have done and all the atrocities they are going to do. ITS NOT JUST POLITICS. No common ground with this fascist FU….

Groveling before the warlord’s throne. Very undignified, but they gave up any claims to dignity long ago.

We’re going to see much more of this bowing and scraping. One thing has always been true about Trump: he forces people to reveal their true selves—their genuine strengths, deepest weaknesses, fragile breaking points, willingness to compromise or buckle, and their most base qualities.

I have no patience for this. They’ve all capitulated. Every single one of them. From Polis to Mika. The “shock and awe” hasn’t even started yet and they are kissing the ring

Had to turn off morning Joe. If you really believe what you said and trust your convictions, what are you doing in Mar-a-lago?

This is part of the reason why their ratings will continue to tank. Turned off after the election, was considering turning back on today…but no thank you to normalizing America’s Hitler

Turned it off as soon as she said that. Access journalism at its worst.

Oh FFS these two

Their ratings will just continue to tank. Being Fox News Lite only alienates their audience; it doesn’t win new viewers. The only clear business choice for MSNBC after the election was to replace its Lincoln Project types with strong, unapologetic progressives.

I turned on this morning to give them another chance to be real journalists and got gobsmacked with the fact they not only interacted with Trump but went to Maralago to grovel. Beyond sickening. Never watch again and any of their guests will also lose credibility.

“He seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats.” Oh, did he now, Joe? Did he? And did he have any suggestions about how he intends to do that after years of dragging the entire party through a stinking gutter of his made-up stories? Maybe he has some sort of a “weave” in mind?

So they think they could actually negotiate with a dictator. They believe he has met them on common ground.

How people manage to lie to themselves this way, I will never understand.

Definitely an “obey in advance” with these two. Goodbye to their show/podcast.

The state of the nation: literal nazis marching in the streets of Columbus, and these dipshits heading to Mar-a-lago to kiss the chief nazi’s ass.

Leopards, face, etc

The fact that the press had to go out to Trump’s compound to essentially kiss the ring should be far more troubling to them than anything he said.

He lies like he breathes, and this is not a great look for the media’s future.

Rich folks gonna do rich folks stuff. I’m done with them. There is no compromise with MAGA. Ever.

“We’re not here to normalize Trump!” they exclaim as they normalize Trump.

Historian will marvel at the abundance of cowardice in our generation.

“.. was to negotiate the terms of our surrender”

Mika looked like she was choking down vomit as she was saying the words on the teleprompter. She does not look on board or happy.

‘He seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats.’

Yeah right. And I hear the cow just jumped over the moon.

Fools

Previously:

The resistance (December 18, 2016)

Practical Dissent: Protest Signs (November 17, 2024)

Practical Dissent: Resistance – OSS Manual (1944) (November 17, 2024)

Actually, really

08 Monday Jul 2024

Posted by in media criticism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

[….] THE PRESIDENT: No, it was — it was — but, look, you’ve been wrong about everything so far.

Q Not really.

THE PRESIDENT: You were wrong about 2020. You were wrong about 2022 that we were going to get wiped out. Remember the “red wave”? You were wrong about 2023 when you said all the tough races we were going to — we won them all but two. [….]

Heh. He kicked their asses.

Joe Biden (D) [2020 file photo].

From the White House:

JULY 05, 2024
Remarks by President Biden Before Air Force One Departure | Madison, WI

Dane County Regional Airport
Madison, Wisconsin

4:37 P.M. CDT

Q Mr. President, how was your interview? How was the interview with ABC, sir?

Q Mr. President, how was the interview?

Q How did it go, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it was a good interview. You’ll all be able to see it at eight o’clock tonight. It’s — they’re going to (inaudible).

Q Are you dropping out of the race or are you completely ruling that out?

THE PRESIDENT: Completely ruling that out.

Q Mr. President, how can you make the case that democracy is at risk, that you are the best candidate to beat Donald Trump?

THE PRESIDENT: Because I’ve beaten him before, and I’ve gotten more done than any president has.

Q That was four years — that was four years ago, Mr. —

Q Have you spoken to members of Congress?

Q That was four years ago, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: No, it was — it was — but, look, you’ve been wrong about everything so far.

Q Not really.

THE PRESIDENT: You were wrong about 2020. You were wrong about 2022 that we were going to get wiped out. Remember the “red wave”? You were wrong about 2023 when you said all the tough races we were going to — we won them all but two.

So, look, we’ll see.

Q Have you spoken to members of Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: I have. I’ve —

Q Who have you spoken to?

THE PRESIDENT: At least 20. And all the —

Q What are they telling you?

Q What are they telling you, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: They’re telling me to stay in the race.

Q What about the people who have called for — they’re gathering together to call for you to step aside? I think Senator Mark Warner is one of the people.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mark Warner, my understanding, is the only one considering that. No one else is calling me to do that.

Q Do you value the thoughts of individuals in your —

Q Sir, will you commit to debating President — former President Trump again?

THE PRESIDENT: I hope he’ll debate me. I — I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t —

Q And if he’s in, will you commit to debating him a second time?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m committing now. Absolutely, whether he’s in or not.

Q Do you value the thoughts of members of your own party when it comes to your decision to stay in the race?

THE PRESIDENT: Sure, I do. That’s why they’ve — you guys saw the governors. Every one of them in that room — all those governors said, “Stay in the race.”

Q Maura Healey.

THE PRESIDENT: Maura Healey didn’t say anything when I was in the room. Okay?

Q Sir, will you make changes to your campaign staff at all after the debate, the fallout?

THE PRESIDENT: We’re — we’re adding — look, we’ve just added another 120 staffers. We’re — we have the most extensive staff operation in the states.

Q And are you pleased with your advisers and how they’re seeing you through this — this moment in your campaign?

THE PRESIDENT: Any mistake made is my fault. Thank you.

Q Are you confident you can serve another four years?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m positive.

Q Mr. President, you — you’ve always talked to young people. You’re so committed to talking to young people. Why not let someone younger take the country forward? You just have to ask. You know, why not let — like, every CEO has a succession plan.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, by the way, we do have succession plans. But what do I need a succession plan for now?

And, by the way, you know, I mean — anyway.

Q No, no, no. Go on.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

4:39 P.M. CDT

[….] Q Mr. President, you — you’ve always talked to young people. You’re so committed to talking to young people. Why not let someone younger take the country forward? You just have to ask. You know, why not let — like, every CEO has a succession plan. [….]

Ten will get you twenty that Donald Trump (r) has not and will not be asked the same question.

republican Investigation: a play in one act

04 Thursday Oct 2018

Posted by in Claire McCaskill, media criticism, Resist, Roy Blunt, US Senate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Witness: “This happened.

republicans: “Where’s your corroboration?”

Witness: “Here, here, here, here…”

republicans: “We’re not going to ask them.”

Witness: “?”

Republicans: “See, there’s no corroboration.”

Old Media: “Both sides…”

All that right wingnut and old media angst about e-mails seems so quaint these days

02 Tuesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Hillary Clinton

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

It was stupid and vicious.

Hillary Clinton [2016 file photo].

So, instead, we got this:

Media Report: Trump Built Fortune Via Tax Fraud

President Donald Trump used questionable tax dodges and outright fraud to greatly increase his fortune that started with money from his parents, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Trump likes to portray himself as a self-made man, saying he stared with a relatively modest $1 million loan from his father and built his riches through investments and deals.

But in an extensive and detailed 40,000-word story, the Times reports Trump received about $413 million from his father, Fred Trump, a New York real estate mogul.

[….]

They all built this. They own it. Lock, stock, and barrel.

Who isn’t anti-fascist?

03 Sunday Sep 2017

Posted by in media criticism, Resist

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

That’s an easy question. Old media, overpaid media talking heads, and political spinners are having difficulty answering that simple question.

A counter protestor at the anti-Muslim rally in Washington Square Park in Kansas City on June 10, 2017.

On June 10, 2017 at Washington Square Park in Kansas City there were about forty or so right wingnuts in an anti-Muslim demonstration behind steel fence barricades, a large presence from the Kansas City Police (including mounted officers), around one hundred counter protesters behind yellow tape (the KCPD enforced separation zone between the groups), ACLU observers, and reportedly armed “three percenters” barring entrance to anyone they didn’t approve to the right wingnut area.

The counter protesters were a mix that included a few pacifists, a handful of Greens, and a bunch of masked anti-fascist kids dressed in black and red.

The demonstration(s) consisted of both groups taunting each other and yelling insults for over two hours.

The three percenters wouldn’t allow one of us into the right wingnut area to photograph. The KCPD kept us out of the buffer zone. We were free to roam the counter protesters’ area. Though, at one point toward the end of the demonstration a group of counter protesters angrily confronted us as we photographed them taunting the right wingnuts from across the street on Main.

Pro tip: if you’re doing anything in public you have no expectation of privacy. Expect to be photographed.

Earlier three right wingnuts trolled the counter protest area (one carrying a flag), walking through it while being trailed by some of the anti-fascists (who didn’t directly confront them) and ACLU observers (in green vests) filming them with smart phones.

You don’t normalize white supremacists, racists, fascists, Nazis or the KKK. Ever. Anti-fascists know this.

Old media and a lot of hand wringers have been going after anti-fascists in their usual lazy “both siderism” coverage. They’re not the same.

I’ve covered a lot of demonstrations, marches and protests over the years. I’ve seen anarchists, socialists, Maoists [to quote an incredulous Bob Yates, “Who’s a Maoist these days?], anti-fascists, liberals, “moderates”, farmers, ranchers, grandmothers, and moms with kids in strollers.

There’s no “card carrying” cadre, people just decide to show up. Besides, any organized protest in this age would be too much to ask or expect.

More of us will have to decide to show up if we’re going to save ourselves.

I’ve also witnessed individuals with crosses made out of red tape affixed to their overstuffed backpacks, ready to act as medics at large demonstrations. They, too, just decided to show up.

The only times I’ve seen anyone carrying a firearm (who was not a police officer) they were right wingnuts.

The anti-fascists may choose to wear protective gear because they don’t want to get their heads beat in. I’m good with that. In fact, I may add additional protective gear to my demonstration coverage go bag.

It’s been my direct observation over the years that the red and black clad anti-fascists won’t start something, but, by God, they’re prepared to step in if they need to.

Sometimes they do. From an individual who was in Charlottesville, Virginia:

My “Nonviolent” Stance Was Met With Heavily Armed Men

…I never felt safer than when I was near antifa. They came to defend people, to put their bodies between these armed white supremacists and those of us who could not or would not fight. They protected a lot of people that day, including groups of clergy. My safety (and safety is relative in these situations) was dependent upon their willingness to commit violence. In effect, I outsourced the sin of my violence to them. I asked them to get their hands dirty so I could keep mine clean. Do you understand? They took that up for me, for the clergy they shielded, for those of us in danger. We cannot claim to be pacifists or nonviolent when our safety requires another to commit violence, and we ask for that safety…

[….]

…If you are unwilling to risk your bodily integrity to stand against literal Nazis, but you are willing to criticize the people out there who are taking this grave threat seriously but not in a way of which you approve….I just don’t know what to say to you. Truly. Your moral authority is bankrupt and you’re not helping. You’re a hypocrite…

This. Exactly this.

If you don’t speak out, if you don’t show up, if you don’t make a stand against the fascists and supremacists then you’ve acquiesced to their view of the world and their plans for the rest of us.

Go. Read the whole thing.

Our failed media experiment

03 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

No, not us.

An editorial in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal [subscription required]:

9/30/2012 6:29:00 PM

Newspaper says no to political letters

EDITORIAL

Jack Miles

Editor

Each October – in a presidential election year, especially – voters naturally want to tout the virtues of the virtuous candidates they support and eviscerate the miserable demon spawn whom they oppose, which leads from the obvious to this point: The Daily Star-Journal does not accept endorsement letters, and does not accept condemnation letters, regarding candidates.

Just as TV and radio stations cannot give up valuable – meaning worth money – time for what amounts to free advertising for or against a candidate, neither can the newspaper. The fact is, if a candidate through his supporters’ letters can get the milk free, why would he buy the cow? To be direct, a letter of endorsement, no matter how heartfelt, amounts to free advertising….

Uh, one big difference is that the public actually owns the airwaves. Or we used to. It’s still a federal regulation that broadcasters must give qualified federal candidates preferential rates (something not available to SuperPACs).

The editorial continues:

….Obviously, if the newspaper prints one endorsement letter, more will follow. The same is true with allowing letters to slam candidates – with letters written in defense of or to rebut the nasty comments. Which, again, amounts to free advertising….

Why, if the proponents or opponents of a candidate or a ballot issue are particularly erudite that could elevate the level of our political discourse, don’t you think? If not, what’s the downside of an ignoranimus voluntarily exposing themselves to public view? Either one could increase readership and maybe even subscriptions ($!).

Whatever happened to acting in the public interest? Instead, we get a paean to Citizens United:

….When some politicians all but ignore newspapers, the one medium that people rely on, actually pay for, to receive their news and advertising, newspapers have no reason to print free political endorsement letters.

As a result, if a person feels strongly that Barack Obama should be re-elected or Mitt Romney should become president, then take out a small ad in the newspaper – better yet, a big one – and say so.

But to expect The Daily Star-Journal – which has but one way to make money, by selling advertising space – to give away space is not a sensible business model.

Wait we’re confused. If you have subscribers and advertisers isn’t that two revenue streams? You see, we’re kind of aware of that distinction because around here we have none of the former and few of the latter.

We’re assuming that a full page ad in the local paper costs more than five hundred dollars. If you do that you just might have some paperwork to fill out:

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 130

Campaign Finance Disclosure Law

Section 130.011

Definitions.

[….]

(15) “Expenditure”, a payment, advance, conveyance, deposit, donation or contribution of money or anything of value for the purpose of supporting or opposing the nomination or election of any candidate for public office or the qualification or passage of any ballot measure or for the support of any committee which in turn supports or opposes any candidate or ballot measure or for the purpose of paying a previously incurred campaign debt or obligation of a candidate or the debts or obligations of a committee; a payment, or an agreement or promise to pay, money or anything of value, including a candidate’s own money or property, for the purchase of goods, services, property, facilities or anything of value for the purpose of supporting or opposing the nomination or election of any candidate for public office or the qualification or passage of any ballot measure or for the support of any committee which in turn supports or opposes any candidate or ballot measure or for the purpose of paying a previously incurred campaign debt or obligation of a candidate or the debts or obligations of a committee. An expenditure of anything of value shall be deemed to have a money value equivalent to the fair market value. “Expenditure” includes, but is not limited to….

[….]

….(e) “Expenditure” does not include:

a. Any news story, commentary or editorial which is broadcast or published by any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical without charge to the candidate or to any person supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot measure….

[emphasis added]

Uh, it’s a campaign expenditure if you pay a newspaper to publish something supporting or opposing a candidate or a ballot measure.

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 130

Campaign Finance Disclosure Law

Section 130.047

Reporting noncommittee expenditures.

130.047. Any person who is not a defined committee who makes an expenditure or expenditures aggregating five hundred dollars or more in support of, or opposition to, one or more candidates or in support of, or in opposition to, the qualification or passage of one or more ballot measures, other than a contribution made directly to a candidate or committee, shall file a report signed by the person making the expenditures, or that person’s authorized agent. The report shall include the name and address of the person making the expenditure, the date and amount of the expenditure or expenditures, the name and address of the payee, and a description of the nature and purpose of each expenditure. Such report shall be filed with the appropriate officer having jurisdiction over the election of the candidate or ballot measure in question as set forth in section 130.026 no later than fourteen days after the date of making an expenditure which by itself or when added to all other such expenditures during the same campaign equals five hundred dollars or more. If, after filing such report, additional expenditures are made, a further report shall be filed no later than fourteen days after the date of making the additional expenditures; except that, if any such expenditure is made within fourteen days prior to an election, the report shall be filed no later than forty-eight hours after the date of such expenditure. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a person who uses only the person’s funds or resources to make an expenditure or expenditures in support of or in coordination or consultation with a candidate or committee; provided that, any such expenditure is recorded as a contribution to such candidate or committee and so reported by the candidate or committee being supported by the expenditure or expenditures.

[emphasis added]

Uh, if you spend more than five hundred dollars (not in campaign contributions) in support of or in opposition to a non-federal Missouri candidate or a Missouri ballot measure you have to file a campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

The world we live in. If you have plenty of money you can take out an ad in the local paper expressing your support for a particular candidate or issue. If not, well, you’re out of luck.

Is it really an argument distilling the role of the newspaper in our First Amendment protected public discourse down to advertising revenue? John Peter Zenger weeps.