I will state again that given how much MSM source have reported in bad stuff about Trump it seems a stretch to believe there is some conspiracy to secretly get Trumped elected. It seems more likely that Trump is the former President and is loud. I don’t see anything to indicate that Wa Post and certainly not NBC which has often gotten over their skis reporting bad stuff about Trump is secretly trying to get him re-elected. Further given we see both left and right engaging in “blame the media” This seems like more Credence for the horse shoe theory.
Does anyone remember this being taught in a HS civics course where the journalists are generally left leaning and the editors are center-left? Add on the owners (pick a handful of families and you're 50% there) who are mostly profit leaning (now out of survival than choice) outside of the Murdochs. I guess HS civics lessons were last taught 20+ years ago, and Rush was considered a blow hard on fringe AM radio. If it bleeds it leads.Still true. In the last Vergecast, their Editor-in-Chief was humble bragging about how he/they gets to choose the stuff they talk about on the podcast because if they only went by numbers then it'd be non-stop Apple product and Elon coverage. That's what their analytics and research say drive traffic and impressions. Instead I listened around an hour at 1.5x about random Amazon FO moves, how a geek gamer lady loves a niche Surface tablet no one gives a **** about, and some small sprinkles their tech conference coverage. Oh right, in leaked docs Phil Specter thinks Nintendo is the best video game company in the world and would snatch them up if only Nintendo's board of directors would just be a little greedier. tbh I'd rather hear about Elon gossip (outside of this forum I avoid that news) or new Apple junk to consider buying. And that week's podcast was weak enough for me to consider listening to it a couple weeks later. MSM isn't a monolithic entity. When they had Hearst-like regional monopolies, they could push personal agendas or vendettas harder, but like the old broadcast networks, they're getting out hustled by twitter or even boomer Facebook. Without easy margins, they're more vulnerable to slop-trough source pooling where one or two reputable sources becomes an echo chamber in of itself. It's safer because real reporting sometimes uncover real enemies. Some dude running a investment fund was banging on the table to Bloomberg about how fraudulent FTX and SBF were, but their editors told them they wouldn't pick it up because they'd piss off a billionaire and lose access. Olberman and O'Reilly had a catfight that escalated to reporting on their corporate masters, like GE selling weapons to Iran and Murdoch's political entanglements...That beef was squashed quickly. On a journalistic level, there's ongoing rebellions against editors for what they feel is not giving enough truth to power. That shift visibly happened when Trump came to power, and it has heavily distorted reporting. You hear more about The Science or some panic driven urgency for social driven movements that squashes genuine debate. They still haven't even owned up for building Trump's campaign and reporting half truths without verification. Their excuse was that they didn't want to be outscooped by an upstart like Buzzfeed, but because of it Steve Bannon and Breitbart played them like a ****ing fiddle right up to the election results. Once bitten, twice shy...Now they report less on "fringe leads", while claiming those traces didn't end up to anything fruitful. It's because research and investigation is expensive and ultimately doesn't turn a profit for a corporation's bottom line. We're in an attention economy, and blown reputations from mistakes can be forgiven with the next big scoop. The debate becomes whittled down into "fact checkers" or "that one or two men/women at Wapo/NYT/WSJ". A good many still implicitly trust that reporting because we mostly have no good choices. Learning to read between the lines across different sources isn't net beneficial in the short term and carries investment costs. When media institutions lie by omission, you don't know unless you venture across a different echo chamber. That one sounds more fringe because the alt-media corporate sponsors are less entangled with the broader economy. To compete, their less reputable editors and journalists take more risks that are taught as no-nos in journalism class (if they ever took it). They also pander heavily to their skewed audience demographics. Some of yall wonder why there's distrust with the media. It's because you don't care or think much about their ****ups and because you think there's no credible alternative that fits your routine. But hey a shoestring operation with two-bit producers worked brilliantly at Fox News with billions in annual profits. MSNBC copied the same formula and it works. They just double their lawyer retainers and bullshit their way out of culpability through speech rights or negligence over malice. TL;DR: Journalists: don't want Trump to win. After internalizing the Hillary debacle, they'd rather lie their way to make everyone hate Trump if they could get away with it. Editors: mostly want/enforce journalists to follow "journalist rules", but know everyone will watch a Good Horse Race. Corporate owners: **** you pay me. Coffee is for closers, and the numbers are saying that there will be another round of layoffs after the election cycle is over.
I wonder how many articles were going have written about this poll versus the fake outliner which shows trump winning college kids by 20. It's simply amazing how polling can drive fake narratives
National polls don't matter. The next election will be determined by Arizona, Wisconson, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina etc.
The guy who thinks we should water the forest during summer to prevent wildfires lmaooooooo. It's just hilarious how you folks talk **** about biden but worship a guy with down syndrome. MAGAT turds are just as dumb as their cult leader
The guy who doesn't know if world War 2 happened or not is the very stable genius according to you. What a ****ing joke If you wanna talk **** about biden you can't asslick trump who says crazier **** than Biden. The difference is nobody sees trumps unhinged braindead rants
We know. Trump is trash. It doesn't excuse late stage Biden. Trying to reelect Biden brings a whole level of magnitude to the head buried in the sand indium.
Again. Show me one single individual that says Biden isn't up for the job that has met him. They just released an all access book on the WH and the author frank interviewed thousands of diplomats and staffers in dc and not a single one said biden wasn't mentally there. Staffers from the 80s told frank that they couldn't believe biden still remembered their families and kids. The author of the book wrote the book with the thought that biden was too old and he wasn't up for the job but at the end he couldn't back that hypothesis. People think biden is in much worst shape than he is cuz ppl only see a 10 second clip. I'm not stating biden is the smartest person but hes smarter than trump and when campaign season starts it will show. There's no difference between their mental capacity. https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Last-Politician-Audiobook/B0C34C8JZT
Memeing and Twitter posting is apparently the adult way to politic in America in 2023 God save us all
Trump desperately needs to hire speech writers and get back to reading from a prompter. Or not. It is way more entertaining to hear what comes out of his very big brain.
Listen to Biden’s McCain memorial speech and then listen to Trump’s California speech. Who is the one with cognitive issues? https://www.c-span.org/video/?530790-1/pres-biden-honors-late-sen-john-mccain-r-az
Admittedly, no, but I have seen enough speeches of both to hope for someone younger and (in Biden's case) and classier (in Trump's case).
