Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[entropy]

People including Republican Party leaders called for executing Hillary Clinton. But maybe they didn't use the F word.

actually, I forgot about that... that did happen.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Ghengis.. I would be the exact opposite. Trump may say some disgusting things, but Bill is a whole different level of predator.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you'd say this, as it does not comport with what I know the facts to be.

[iam416]

The print media (and TV media) will continue to push their agenda. And Trump will effectively score points with that.

[entropy]

I'm genuinely curious as to why you'd say this, as it does not comport with what I know the facts to be.

I guess it comes down to do you believe his accusers...

[hack]

I don't see that they have AN agenda. Other than to sell their product. The vast majority of them are for-profit companies, and can be expected to behave like them. If that's an agenda, you wonder why they continue to produce boring, unreadable shit.

[iam416]

In actual news, DeVos will be confirmed today. The Ds did their best, but without the filibuster (thank you, Harry!), the Rs could even afford to let two of their own make very public statements against her. She will have to live up to the lofty legacy of the legendary Arne Duncan! I doubt she will be as ardently common core as Mr. Duncan. And with his emphasis on testing, he managed to close out his stint with modest decreases in proficiency: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.4c57a771308f

Well done. Ms. DeVos has some real high standards to live up to.

Meanwhile, Ds and the press will react as you would expect -- hysterically.

[iam416]

If that's an agenda, you wonder why they continue to produce boring, unreadable shit.

NYT's subscriptions are spiking! It's certainly not Trump voters subscribing. They know their audience and what sells -- they're a business, as you noted.

[Wild Hoss]

I don't see that they have AN agenda. Other than to sell their product. The vast majority of them are for-profit companies, and can be expected to behave like them. If that's an agenda, you wonder why they continue to produce boring, unreadable shit.

IDK that either Trump or The Media is scoring more points than the other in this process, or if keeping score in the traditional sense is even a relevant metric. I tend to think its not, in an era where there are no facts, and effectively no Centrist voting block to act as arbiter of them if there were.

They are in the outrage manufacturing business...pretty much all major media is. (See: The War on Christmas) Business is booming.

[Da Geezer]

Meanwhile, Ds and the press will react as you would expect -- hysterically.

And, to that point, I heard this morning that "this is the first time in recent US history that a VP has to break a tie for a cabinet confirmation.". No kidding. Prior to 2013, the filibuster was in effect so the threshold was 60 votes.

[iam416]

They are in the outrage manufacturing business...pretty much all major media is. (See: The War on Christmas) Business is booming.

This is correct, IMO. Though, I should note that I feel the need to question my conclusion given that it accords with the vapid intellectualism of Hoss.

There doesn't seem to be any measured pushback. Ever. There wasn't from the right on the key Obama shit. There certainly isn't from the left on Trump. Everything is an outrage.

What's interesting is the contrast in Obama and Trump. Obama chose to, IMO, condescendingly brush off opponents as people who just don't understand. I found it particularly irritating. He was never "non-presidential" -- just, ummm, remarkably condescending. Trump, heh, carries no airs of intellectual superiority. Heh heh. He counters outrage with outrage and brazenly challenges the afflicted to BRING IT STRONGER!!!

I'm not sure which is better for political points, but I do very much believe that Trump's approach has currency with more than just his voters if/when the media falls into hysterics and outrage and, inevitable, unfair stories. 1 hit job ruins 10 legitimate, well-reported stories -- ok, I have no stats on that -- but I think you get the point -- you can lose your credibility and lot faster than you can build it up.

[iam416]

And, to that point, I heard this morning that "this is the first time in recent US history that a VP has to break a tie for a cabinet confirmation.". No kidding. Prior to 2013, the filibuster was in effect so the threshold was 60 votes.

Exactly. If they could get past the filibuster then they had ample votes. It's a "fact" but it's a fact that demands context.

[hack]

Well I think at some point you'd want to start to differentiate. I doubt anyone can seriously consume both The New Yorker or any major cable news show and come to the conclusion that both are attempting to manufacture outrage, or that both can be filed under the same category.

I agree on that last point. And there are most certainly hit jobs. But, again, if these were simply sophists writing on behalf of their parent company's profit margin, they are utterly terrible at that job. I dare you to read the Anthony Weiner coverage, note the awkward verbal constructs, and still believe that these passages were written in an attempt to manufacture outrage. I think it's pretty clear that there's more to the analysis than that.

But it is still useful to remember media are for-profit corporations, and to adjust expectations accordingly. At some point the sane reaction would be to count up the media that are insulated from their own bottom line, note the remarkably and consistently better product available in almost all cases, and act on that. Or to draw a distinction between media reliant on revenue from ads and media with an incredibly stable subscription base, such as The New Yorker. Obvious conclusions to be made here.

[iam416]

So here's two potential stories a reporter, I think, could very easily do.

(1) The fate of refugees from the Middle East forced to flee their homes under awful circumstances. Preferably the story would focus on families with ample spotlight on children. A real human interest story that will tug at the heart strings of anyone with soul.

(2) The damage done by illegal immigrant felons and the families coping with the crimes. Track down 3 or 4 families of victims murdered by illegals. Try to focus on crimes committed by illegals that were previously arrested, released from jail -- and not deported. More family pain. Tugging at heart strings.

Either of those stories, IMO, could be (and may have already been) written. Both would be "facts." IMO, if I gave you a news outlet and asked you which story they'd be most likely to print/air, we'd have near unanimity in the answers. Because we know which outlets will push which angle of any given issue.

[iam416]

I like the The New Yorker, but it has a clear point of view when it delves into political writing. Their writing is considerably better than most hacks (pun intended), but they still aim toward the outraged simply because, IMO, of their point-of-view.

I mean: http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-...o-stefan-zweig

Look, a lithmus test I have is comparing DJT to Nazi Germany and fascism.

[hack]

I think both kinds of stories are going to have, very high up, some numbers. Or should have. Specific and transparent ones. Those stories are only told in mainstream media when they are a zoomed-in look at a larger phenomenon, and when that one family in the spotlight is representative of a much larger group.