@Laloofah I agree. One thing I think we have to recognize right now is that the media do not intend to learn from what they did in 2016. They are too arrogant — and, frankly, they do not want to learn. They aren't carrying water for Trump and the Republicans because they don't know better. They're doing so eyes wide open.
@wdlindsy Given the ramifications for a free press under an authoritarian, autocratic, right wing regime, their unconscionably unprofessional, anti-democratic behavior beggars belief & boggles the mind.
@t_mkdf That may be part of the story, but the deeper story is the embedding of media owners and top managers in an economic structure in which their interests lie in promoting Republicans and defanging Democrats for self-serving economic reasons.
@t_mkdf I think there's abundant evidence that Republican mega donors and the super-rich in general have been the ultimate engine driving the Trump train — and even if they prefer someone who pretends to be more "centrist" as the GOP face, they'll line up behind Trump all over again if he's the candidate. The rich always predictably rich.
"The problem is that the real sub-header to the NYTimes’ headline about Joe Biden’s victory was this:
'Four years ago, Black voters in the state revitalized President Biden’s political fortunes. But Saturday’s repeat win is an uncertain measure of wider enthusiasm for his re-election bid.'
What?? Biden gets more than 95% of the votes by Black voters, and that is dismissed as an 'uncertain measure' of enthusiasm in the Black community for Biden?"
In the name of all that is good and pure, what more could Biden do to prove his support among the Black community? Receive 100% of the Black vote?? That is statistically impossible and would be a sure sign of a Soviet-style election!"
The bottom line here (my conclusion): New York Times and other corporate media outlets have a vested interest in generating claims that the Democrats are losing Black and Hispanic voters. Their interest is in undermining Biden.
New York Times and corporate media outlets like it work overtime in keeping the progressive wing of the Democratic party in check, in spinning narratives that the Democrats are in disarray even when we can see with our own eyes that the Republican party is in shambles, in attributing governmental deadlock to "both sides."
They behave this way because they do not want the progressive tax policies the Democrats might enact if given more power.
@wdlindsy I think that’s one reason. Another is that “Incumbent president overwhelmingly wins primary” is a boring story (in terms of horse-race). It’s more interesting to pretend that there is a serious primary challenge to Biden.
Moreover, the political media is geared to covering process stories rather than stories about the merits of the underlying policies. These stories are way more interesting when you have an unstable authoritarian whacko in the White House.
@cohomologyisFUN When a big narrative line in a horse-race story is that one of the horses comes bearing megatons of dynamite and will blow the entire race track to kingdom come, the boring horse-race story becomes a story of a very different kind. Such that it becomes deeply irresponsible to frame the story as a traditional horse-race story.
@TruthSandwich Yes, that's the reading of the Democrats the corporate media want to implant in our brains. I resist letting the media implant narratives like that in my own brain.
@TruthSandwich You see socialist populists, and I see, oh, sane and humane people. Labels don't really capture reality, and determining their meaning takes meaningful analysis and conversation. Slapping scare labels on things doesn't facilitate meaningful conversation.
My favourite in ill-intended politics is to use those hastily vague generalization. Some politicians have become world champs in this sport
e.g.: My neighbour's cat has mixomatosis. It's well known, I was speaking about it last week, and everybody says it: All cats have mixomatosis, and bring disease to our disease-free country
The nec-plus-ultra is to imply that my neighbour is immigrant
I don't see them as socialist populist who aren't Democrats: this is how they see themselves.
The JD's, for example, affiliate with the DSA socialists and communists, and describe themselves as populists, all while attacking the DNC as the target of takeover.
These are their own labels for themselves. They're admitting to what they are, so why don't you believe them?!
(Below is an example of them self-identifying as populists.)
@TruthSandwich Again: the tags people like this political group use to identify themselves do not automatically communicate the content you may wish to hear in that tag. It's immaterial that they call themselves socialist populists. What matters is that you hear that designation as automatically, tautologically, self-evidently negative.
I don't. Many others may not, either. Simply labeling something and concluding that the label forecloses discussion is not productive.
It's not just that they admit to these labels, it's that they're not lying. They really are socialist and populist. Once they tell you so, it becomes impossible to deny, and yet you keep trying to. Why?
It's not just that populism has negative connotations, for example, it's that these are well-earned and the JD's live up to exactly the aspects that garnered it such a low reputation. That's why most populists don't readily admit to being populists.
@TruthSandwich I think you have not understood me. I have not denied that some people label themselves as socialist populists.
What I am saying is that that term has an obvious negative resonance for you. But not for me….
So simply slapping the label on a group of people and assuming that's a conversation stopper doesn't work, when labels have very different resonances for different people.
@TruthSandwich You spoke of socialist populists — a hybrid term — not of populists. Adding the first term to the second adds layers of meaning not present when we're focused on a single word.
You are attracted to the notion that the "radical left" is a huge political threat. I'm not attracted to that notion. It seems absurdly overblown in the American political context, a confabulation of centrists and right-wingers. I'm far more concerned about the threat posed by the right and center-right.
The article I linked to covers both ends of the horseshoe: socialist and fascist populists alike.
I have yet another article in socialism in isolation, but it would probably offend you.
The radical left sees itself as a threat to the moderate left. And it is, but not the way they imagine. They can't take over the DNC, but they can undermine it, and they have before.
The far left is what's stabbing at us as we face the far right.
From astute colleague Tyler Olson. House Democrats appear to have outwitted Republicans Tuesday – disguising their attendance numbers and convincing House Republicans they had the votes to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. In fact, they did not
@TMEubanks And how would you know what I know and don't know?
I know very well that those who say no and who tear things down exercise great control in stopping the forward movement of history — and never in making productive history, since that's not what they're about.
@EALS_Director Yes, if we make it through this troubled time in history, I think historians will look back and conclude that the corporate media were a huge part of the problem that got us near the edge of the abyss. Colossal abdication of moral responsibility on their part….