Are these the same "enemies of the people" who spent the last four years being chastised for selling "fake news" and being insulted daily by the "chosen one?" Do they remember having to stand outside in the driveway with a running helicopter competing for their audio? How many were personally attacked for doing their jobs, and spoken down to on national tv? Did they somehow enjoy having to find ways to cover the official words and actions of the POTUS while avoiding saying or writing too obviously about the hideous lack of competence and decorum that permeated the entire experience? And finally, does the 'mainstream press' realize that their mainstream-ness is a fragile instrument, which when abused drives more and more questioning of their news judgement, and bias. I agree with your assessment Mr. B., and hope the real news industry grabs a glove and gets in the game sooner rather than later.
The abuse made them feel like they were Danger Boys. The fact that they completely folded in the face of that danger, well, they'd rather not talk about that.
Please don't call them stenographers; that's an insult to stenographers. Stenographers take down everything that everyone says, and they take it down exactly; this bunch doesn't do that.
I would characterize it as perverse rather than bizarre, because it is such an inevitable and common result of the postmodernist perspective we are all taught from kindergarten to college. In the same way that Republicons love being able to cast themselves as victims of unfair treatment by the media, the media can't help but rely on the same "look how much they hate us" basis for their identity and self-esteem.
In a 'my facts are Truth, your facts are opinions' world, where we are told that epistemology and ontology are both unconnected and identical, there really isn't anything else to establish a sense of confidence but being loved by those who agree with us or hated by those who don't. So regardless of which side of any centerline our personalities begin with, postmodernism unavoidably drives us to the extremes of either narcissism or self-loathing, with both resulting in the misanthropic attitude that postmodernism itself not coincidentally mandates.
You are right. Of course the press, too few of whom are grown-up, liked to be able to boast about being singled-out by Trump for his invective. Sort of like the gang egging old man Trump's house and running away giggling.
Thank you for bringing up the fawning treatment that the press usually gave, and still gives, to Reagan. Democrats often speculate on the reasons for the media’s kid glove treatment of Republicans and often believe it is a recent phenomenon. The 2020 Showtime documentary “The Reagans” by Matt Tyrnauer makes it clear that this treatment started with Reagan:
“Tyrnauer argues that Reagan has been protected by historians, Republicans and journalists because of his political success and likability.”
An blatant example of this was given by Leslie Stahl in her interview for Tyrnauer:
“Stahl, in her interview, describes the allure this first family had over the media as she recalls the first time he stepped into the White House briefing room to talk to the press. “We all kind of melted,” she says. “We were puddles on the floor.””
You would think that a respected, influential journalists like Stahl would have been deeply embarassed to admit that kind of fawning behavior. She sounds like a teenager with a crush on a rock star, not a professional.
At least since JFK the media has been too influenced by style over substance, by glamour and charm, especially when that charm is directed at them and has downgraded quiet competence and achievement. Imagine their reaction if an Angela Merkel type dared to run here.
Another potent factor behind the media’s lower bar for Republicans is the intimidation by the right that has been going on for decades. Nixon had Agnew do the attacking. Agnew’s viscous disparagement of the press with words written by Pat Buchanan was very similar to Trump’s.
That kind of intimidation has worked not only here but also in the UK. A recent article in The Guardian has described how the British media has ignored the blatant corruption that has happened under Johnson. It has been known for months that for critical COVID supplies were given in secret to Boris’s cronies yet the media has barely covered it, apparently because they are too afraid to challenge their conservative government. Even the BBC has been doing its best to avoid this and other stories about Johnson’s shady deals. It doesn’t help that conservative officials at the top of the BBC.
I suspect lots of people might not know/recall how the DC press fawned over Reagan for most of his 8 yrs.....ie the press is supposed to be Liberal, lol
Oh I remember it. I remember how the press looked the other way when James Watt trashed rule after rule. I remember how Anne Gorsuch gave blank check to polluters when she ran the EPA. I remember Neil Bush and his pals looting the S&L's. I remember Michael Millken junk bonding companies and killing the steel industry in Western Pennsylvania. I remember Iran-Contra. And I especially remember how the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post all joined forces to destroy Gary Webb after he exposed Contra Cocaine flooding into South Central Los Angeles.
All the time the press endlessly bowed down to Pruneface Reagan and begged to kiss his ass. No matter how corrupt Pruneface was the Press still made him into St. Ronnie.
“Tyrnauer argues that Reagan has been protected by historians, Republicans and journalists because of his political success and likability.”
I think Tyrnauer exemplifies the issue rather than explains it, by describing that as the reason for the Myth of Saint Ron. I believe the truth is the privileged classes adopt(ed) this hagiographic approach because Reagan's election signified that the USA would not become the progressive egalitarian society it was threatening to because President Carter defeated President Ford. After the end of the war in Viet Nam and the draft, after Watergate and Ford's pardon, it was quite possible that, rather than a pendulum swing back to whitebread conservatism, the country's trajectory would continue towards civil and economic egalitarianism. Once cryptofascist Raygun ended that threat, the corporatist and racists that didn't mind totalitarianism as long as it wasn't communist breathed a huge sigh of relief, and annointed the former California Governor with permanent honeymoon status.
I think that does explain some of the favoritism. Clearly there are conservatives in the mainstream media. But from what I have seen over the decades (I remember Eisenhower) I think the cult of personality is at least as strong a factor when it comes to the them. I remember a discussion about the “glamorous” Fred Thompson. He was a TV star but glamorous is not a word I would associate with him. And look at how the media bought and perpetuated the “Camelot” myth about JFK as if he were somehow magical. That is a really ridiculous thing for professional political journalists to do.
I agree almost entirely. My only dissent would be that I think "Camelot" was more of a legend that got out of hand than an actual myth. Admittedly, I have no direct experience of JFK, and it is obvious he was revered because he was assassinated far more than his actual time in office would have otherwise warranted. But as for Fred Thompson, I can only say "Hells Yes!" 😉
Ironically if Ronald Reagan were a candidate today, he would be drummed out of the Republican Party. I never voted for Reagan and thought he was an awful president. But he was never Donald Trump. The Republicans today are the party of Trump, not Reagan. Biden's head down approach and not taking the Beltway Press bait is another reason why he is so successful and why his poll numbers are so high. I just find this presidency so enjoyable to watch and piggybacking on your metaphor Eric, unlike past Democrats who came to the plate in hopes of getting a piece of a Nolan Ryan fastball, Biden barrels it up and makes solid contact every time.
You're half right. If a Republican candidate came out with a set of policy proposals like Reagan's in 1980, yes; he'd be drummed out of the party. But if Ronald Reagan himself were in his 50s and thinking about running for president in 2024, he'd be roughly Ron DeSantis.
Reagan took a back seat to none of today's Republicans in his open hatred of America; he was just smart enough to know when he didn't have the votes, and in his day you had to succeed -- you couldn't just fail your way through a couple of terms in Congress and then make the big money on Fox News. Those are the only differences.
"Or, as its headline announced, "Biden Gives Republicans What They've Been Waiting For."
That is some tortured logic. Especially considering that people who watched Biden's First 100 Days speech loved it, as he outlined new initiatives for cheaper childcare, smoother roads, faster internet, and promised to combat climate change."
I'm fairly confident most of the story was written in advance, with just a few details thrown in afterward. When you have the narrative you want, what else do you need?
They're still in business for the exact same reason they've always been in business. To shamelessly promote the "inside baseball/chattering class" (h/t Eric and Theodora) conventional wisdom of "unfairly balanced" horserace politicos as the divine authority of savvy expertise. It's right there in the name, painfully obvious in the content, and clearly intentional from the history.
I think you are wrong that people who are into politics don’t pay attention. The top political press people do and many of them are influenced by Politico’s take. In fact I just saw a Politico reporter on Morning Joe. Influencing the perceptions of the Beltway chattering class has a big effect from what I have seen. Their groupthink is an ongoing problem.
Politico and the Sunday Talkies are cut from the same cloth: it is the gated community talking to each other around the pool. The guests are asked the predictable question from the host and they spout off conventional wisdom, the host nods his head (almost always a “him”) and they moved into the Powerhouse Panels where they all agree with each other, and when they disagree, it is with a bonhomie well met.
Because of Press Run exposing Politico to me, I stopped reading it months ago. I guess incompetent, sheeple-writers don't know how to get clicks from writing about a decent, hardworking, competent president, so they get their clicks from writing dishonest trash.
The media seems unable to get off the false equivalence train and their penchant for writing Dems in disarray. Do they teach that in journalism school? Also what is going on at the Wapo?
PS. Off topic but how about the way VP Harris is portrayed lately by msm as wanting to please her boss as her main objective. Who comes up w/these conjectures? How about delving in to the real issues she is leading on?
Way too much hollow, irrelevant inside baseball from Politico. Lizza et al seem enamored by their own insiderness. I read the Politico piece y’day and couldn’t figure out what the heck they were talking about. Biden continues to hit it out of the park and is hiding in plain sight. Seems success by Biden and the Ds is a verboten topic to report on by these ‘conflict or bust’ R tinged scribers - ‘reporters’ is a bit of a stretch imo - turning themselves and their writing into pretzels to get to the strained point they’re trying to make while naming names of insiders they know and have access to AND trying to show off their own relevance. Big pond, small fish?
But to do their jobs would be contrary to what the diseased hundred-thousandth of a cent streetwalkers who comprise the DC political media brothel and its satellites have done for decades, and the fact that they are the enemies of the people does a great deal to explain the state we are in.
And now this from CNN; After reading the article by two CNN reporters it was clear that Al Qaeda operatives told CNN that Al Qaeda will be "continuing war on all other fronts against America unless they are expelled from the rest of the Islamic world". Which could have been an accurate header, and would not have been the click bait they went with: Al Qaeda Promises War On All Fronts Against America As Biden Pulls Out Of Afghanistan. As if the President has somehow done something to put the US deeper in peril? Really?
A few days ago I saw a video clip on Twitter of a young Senator Biden ripping into Ronald Reagan. I think this was the title: "Young Joe Biden speaking of how Reagan planned to weaken the working class", and the url (https://twitter.com/YAForJoeBiden/status/1215107579203989505) but when I went to find it recently, the page no longer existed. It's a very important clip in my opinion. If anyone has a different location of the clip, would you be kind enough to post it here?
Are these the same "enemies of the people" who spent the last four years being chastised for selling "fake news" and being insulted daily by the "chosen one?" Do they remember having to stand outside in the driveway with a running helicopter competing for their audio? How many were personally attacked for doing their jobs, and spoken down to on national tv? Did they somehow enjoy having to find ways to cover the official words and actions of the POTUS while avoiding saying or writing too obviously about the hideous lack of competence and decorum that permeated the entire experience? And finally, does the 'mainstream press' realize that their mainstream-ness is a fragile instrument, which when abused drives more and more questioning of their news judgement, and bias. I agree with your assessment Mr. B., and hope the real news industry grabs a glove and gets in the game sooner rather than later.
Oh in some bizarre way, I think press enjoyed being relentlessly attacked by Trump, and miss that conflict today
The abuse made them feel like they were Danger Boys. The fact that they completely folded in the face of that danger, well, they'd rather not talk about that.
That conflict made lots of $$$$$ for the stenographers.
Please don't call them stenographers; that's an insult to stenographers. Stenographers take down everything that everyone says, and they take it down exactly; this bunch doesn't do that.
Oh, Pre$$titutes are more appropriate!
I would characterize it as perverse rather than bizarre, because it is such an inevitable and common result of the postmodernist perspective we are all taught from kindergarten to college. In the same way that Republicons love being able to cast themselves as victims of unfair treatment by the media, the media can't help but rely on the same "look how much they hate us" basis for their identity and self-esteem.
In a 'my facts are Truth, your facts are opinions' world, where we are told that epistemology and ontology are both unconnected and identical, there really isn't anything else to establish a sense of confidence but being loved by those who agree with us or hated by those who don't. So regardless of which side of any centerline our personalities begin with, postmodernism unavoidably drives us to the extremes of either narcissism or self-loathing, with both resulting in the misanthropic attitude that postmodernism itself not coincidentally mandates.
You are right. Of course the press, too few of whom are grown-up, liked to be able to boast about being singled-out by Trump for his invective. Sort of like the gang egging old man Trump's house and running away giggling.
Charlie Pierce is so on the spot when he refers to Politico as "Tiger Beat On The Potomac"!
Thank you for bringing up the fawning treatment that the press usually gave, and still gives, to Reagan. Democrats often speculate on the reasons for the media’s kid glove treatment of Republicans and often believe it is a recent phenomenon. The 2020 Showtime documentary “The Reagans” by Matt Tyrnauer makes it clear that this treatment started with Reagan:
“Tyrnauer argues that Reagan has been protected by historians, Republicans and journalists because of his political success and likability.”
An blatant example of this was given by Leslie Stahl in her interview for Tyrnauer:
“Stahl, in her interview, describes the allure this first family had over the media as she recalls the first time he stepped into the White House briefing room to talk to the press. “We all kind of melted,” she says. “We were puddles on the floor.””
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/11/arts/television/the-reagans.html
You would think that a respected, influential journalists like Stahl would have been deeply embarassed to admit that kind of fawning behavior. She sounds like a teenager with a crush on a rock star, not a professional.
At least since JFK the media has been too influenced by style over substance, by glamour and charm, especially when that charm is directed at them and has downgraded quiet competence and achievement. Imagine their reaction if an Angela Merkel type dared to run here.
Another potent factor behind the media’s lower bar for Republicans is the intimidation by the right that has been going on for decades. Nixon had Agnew do the attacking. Agnew’s viscous disparagement of the press with words written by Pat Buchanan was very similar to Trump’s.
That kind of intimidation has worked not only here but also in the UK. A recent article in The Guardian has described how the British media has ignored the blatant corruption that has happened under Johnson. It has been known for months that for critical COVID supplies were given in secret to Boris’s cronies yet the media has barely covered it, apparently because they are too afraid to challenge their conservative government. Even the BBC has been doing its best to avoid this and other stories about Johnson’s shady deals. It doesn’t help that conservative officials at the top of the BBC.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/27/media-government-cronyism-dishonesty-bbc-press
I suspect lots of people might not know/recall how the DC press fawned over Reagan for most of his 8 yrs.....ie the press is supposed to be Liberal, lol
Oh I remember it. I remember how the press looked the other way when James Watt trashed rule after rule. I remember how Anne Gorsuch gave blank check to polluters when she ran the EPA. I remember Neil Bush and his pals looting the S&L's. I remember Michael Millken junk bonding companies and killing the steel industry in Western Pennsylvania. I remember Iran-Contra. And I especially remember how the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post all joined forces to destroy Gary Webb after he exposed Contra Cocaine flooding into South Central Los Angeles.
All the time the press endlessly bowed down to Pruneface Reagan and begged to kiss his ass. No matter how corrupt Pruneface was the Press still made him into St. Ronnie.
The press coverage really was awful — and shocking.
“Tyrnauer argues that Reagan has been protected by historians, Republicans and journalists because of his political success and likability.”
I think Tyrnauer exemplifies the issue rather than explains it, by describing that as the reason for the Myth of Saint Ron. I believe the truth is the privileged classes adopt(ed) this hagiographic approach because Reagan's election signified that the USA would not become the progressive egalitarian society it was threatening to because President Carter defeated President Ford. After the end of the war in Viet Nam and the draft, after Watergate and Ford's pardon, it was quite possible that, rather than a pendulum swing back to whitebread conservatism, the country's trajectory would continue towards civil and economic egalitarianism. Once cryptofascist Raygun ended that threat, the corporatist and racists that didn't mind totalitarianism as long as it wasn't communist breathed a huge sigh of relief, and annointed the former California Governor with permanent honeymoon status.
I think that does explain some of the favoritism. Clearly there are conservatives in the mainstream media. But from what I have seen over the decades (I remember Eisenhower) I think the cult of personality is at least as strong a factor when it comes to the them. I remember a discussion about the “glamorous” Fred Thompson. He was a TV star but glamorous is not a word I would associate with him. And look at how the media bought and perpetuated the “Camelot” myth about JFK as if he were somehow magical. That is a really ridiculous thing for professional political journalists to do.
I agree almost entirely. My only dissent would be that I think "Camelot" was more of a legend that got out of hand than an actual myth. Admittedly, I have no direct experience of JFK, and it is obvious he was revered because he was assassinated far more than his actual time in office would have otherwise warranted. But as for Fred Thompson, I can only say "Hells Yes!" 😉
Ironically if Ronald Reagan were a candidate today, he would be drummed out of the Republican Party. I never voted for Reagan and thought he was an awful president. But he was never Donald Trump. The Republicans today are the party of Trump, not Reagan. Biden's head down approach and not taking the Beltway Press bait is another reason why he is so successful and why his poll numbers are so high. I just find this presidency so enjoyable to watch and piggybacking on your metaphor Eric, unlike past Democrats who came to the plate in hopes of getting a piece of a Nolan Ryan fastball, Biden barrels it up and makes solid contact every time.
You're half right. If a Republican candidate came out with a set of policy proposals like Reagan's in 1980, yes; he'd be drummed out of the party. But if Ronald Reagan himself were in his 50s and thinking about running for president in 2024, he'd be roughly Ron DeSantis.
Reagan took a back seat to none of today's Republicans in his open hatred of America; he was just smart enough to know when he didn't have the votes, and in his day you had to succeed -- you couldn't just fail your way through a couple of terms in Congress and then make the big money on Fox News. Those are the only differences.
I agree with you. On race he was Trump using inside voice.
ThX
"Or, as its headline announced, "Biden Gives Republicans What They've Been Waiting For."
That is some tortured logic. Especially considering that people who watched Biden's First 100 Days speech loved it, as he outlined new initiatives for cheaper childcare, smoother roads, faster internet, and promised to combat climate change."
I'm fairly confident most of the story was written in advance, with just a few details thrown in afterward. When you have the narrative you want, what else do you need?
One certainly would not want to sully the narrative with facts!
Why is Politico still in business? Anyone "in the weeds" like us barely pays them any attention. The rest of the world barely reads.
they must survive via the inside baseball DC crowd
They're still in business for the exact same reason they've always been in business. To shamelessly promote the "inside baseball/chattering class" (h/t Eric and Theodora) conventional wisdom of "unfairly balanced" horserace politicos as the divine authority of savvy expertise. It's right there in the name, painfully obvious in the content, and clearly intentional from the history.
I think you are wrong that people who are into politics don’t pay attention. The top political press people do and many of them are influenced by Politico’s take. In fact I just saw a Politico reporter on Morning Joe. Influencing the perceptions of the Beltway chattering class has a big effect from what I have seen. Their groupthink is an ongoing problem.
It’s devolved into an insider echo chamber; the in crowd vs wanna bes.
Politico and the Sunday Talkies are cut from the same cloth: it is the gated community talking to each other around the pool. The guests are asked the predictable question from the host and they spout off conventional wisdom, the host nods his head (almost always a “him”) and they moved into the Powerhouse Panels where they all agree with each other, and when they disagree, it is with a bonhomie well met.
Because of Press Run exposing Politico to me, I stopped reading it months ago. I guess incompetent, sheeple-writers don't know how to get clicks from writing about a decent, hardworking, competent president, so they get their clicks from writing dishonest trash.
Tiger Beat On The Potomac is terrible BUT Axios is even WORSE!
The media seems unable to get off the false equivalence train and their penchant for writing Dems in disarray. Do they teach that in journalism school? Also what is going on at the Wapo?
PS. Off topic but how about the way VP Harris is portrayed lately by msm as wanting to please her boss as her main objective. Who comes up w/these conjectures? How about delving in to the real issues she is leading on?
yeah, saw a particularly weak piece yesterday from Politico w/ that storyline.
Reagan's oft-quoted line sums up my thoughts on Politico: "there you go again."
Way too much hollow, irrelevant inside baseball from Politico. Lizza et al seem enamored by their own insiderness. I read the Politico piece y’day and couldn’t figure out what the heck they were talking about. Biden continues to hit it out of the park and is hiding in plain sight. Seems success by Biden and the Ds is a verboten topic to report on by these ‘conflict or bust’ R tinged scribers - ‘reporters’ is a bit of a stretch imo - turning themselves and their writing into pretzels to get to the strained point they’re trying to make while naming names of insiders they know and have access to AND trying to show off their own relevance. Big pond, small fish?
I'm just waiting to see what the SDNY is going to do with Rudy's buddy John Solomon...
But to do their jobs would be contrary to what the diseased hundred-thousandth of a cent streetwalkers who comprise the DC political media brothel and its satellites have done for decades, and the fact that they are the enemies of the people does a great deal to explain the state we are in.
I definitely ascribe more nefarious motives for their behavior.
And now this from CNN; After reading the article by two CNN reporters it was clear that Al Qaeda operatives told CNN that Al Qaeda will be "continuing war on all other fronts against America unless they are expelled from the rest of the Islamic world". Which could have been an accurate header, and would not have been the click bait they went with: Al Qaeda Promises War On All Fronts Against America As Biden Pulls Out Of Afghanistan. As if the President has somehow done something to put the US deeper in peril? Really?
A few days ago I saw a video clip on Twitter of a young Senator Biden ripping into Ronald Reagan. I think this was the title: "Young Joe Biden speaking of how Reagan planned to weaken the working class", and the url (https://twitter.com/YAForJoeBiden/status/1215107579203989505) but when I went to find it recently, the page no longer existed. It's a very important clip in my opinion. If anyone has a different location of the clip, would you be kind enough to post it here?