If our failed political press followed their own style guide and wrote clearly, simply, and directly it would mean calling Republicans racists for wanting to suppress voters. It’s Jim Crow revisited.
They won’t do it because then they would have to admit that they’ve been wrong about one of our two political parties since at least the Reagan Years, and that won’t happen.
I agree with this article and would add that making it hard to vote should always be framed as anti-democratic, authoritarian actions. I would also like repeated reminders that this started long before Trump. Bush the First vetoed the Motor Voter Bill because it makes it easier for poor people to register. (Clinton later signed it.) The Bush II DOJ fired several Republican US Attorneys who had refused to bring phony voter fraud cases against Democrats. Gerrymandering to dilute Democrats’ votes has a long history — you should see the crazy shape of my Congressional District. Putting fewer polling places in Democratic areas is another longtime tactic and it hasn’t just been used in minority communities. Remember the long voter lines in 2004 in Gambier, Ohio? Students from Kenyon College waited hours to vote for Kerry because the Ohio Sec of State allotted only one polling place to that liberal, mostly white college. A friend’s daughter waited 12 hours to vote that day.
This is off topic but I am extremely frustrated by the reports I am seeing about the newly released report detailing Russian interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections. The report makes it clear that the Russians were able to get their disinformation into our media but that is getting spun by reporters as rightwing media. I am sure they all know that the Biden/Ukraine slander which the report says originated with Russia was first peddled by Steve Bannon’s right hand man Peter Schweitzer. Schweitzer was the first to report those lies in his book “Secret Empires”. His good pal John Solomon then repeated those phony accusation in “The Hill”. The Times and WaPo picked up the story from that.
Bannon and Schweitzer had used the same playbook in 2016 with their smears of the Clinton Foundation. Schweitzer wrote the book “Clinton Cash” then he and Bannon got both the Times and Post to publish those false accusations and misleading innuendo. The most serious accusation was that Hillary had gotten our government to approve the sale of the Uranium One mining company to Russia in order to benefit a major shareholder who was also a big CF donor.
The recently released report about Russian interference in 2016 and 2020 makes it clear that the Biden-Ukraine story was created by Russian intelligence which. Bannon and Schweitzer were clearly their conduit to the mainstream media. I would bet Russians were also the source of the Clinton Foundation/ Uranium One lies and that Bannon was doing their bidding by getting the NY Times and Post to buy into those lies.
In 2019 the widely respected Jane Mayer reported on this scam of Bannon and Schweitzer but reporters have chosen to ignore those facts so they can pretend they it was just the right wing media that was complicit in spreading Russian disinformation.
I don’t understand the hesitancy to name a spade a spade, suppression, suppression. What an important and terrifically newsy/historic story; a story of our times. How is this less important than the number of pressers Biden has held? Do any journalists read PressRun? They should.
The media is not “unequipped” to accurately portray voter suppression. Elias saying the media is unequipped is the verbal equivalent of the media referring to voter suppression as voting restrictions. The correct word is ‘unwilling’
I am personally tired of hearing about the "misinformation" or "misrepresentation" of voter fraud. Why doesn't NPR, for example, call it what it is? A lie. The lie that there was widespread voter fraud. The lie that these states are basing their laws on.
I've begun to wonder if being admitted to the DC political media brothel means first you have to make sure you have gotten an A in Euphemisms 101 before you can graduate to Sucking Up 102.
On Monday's Pod Save America, they played a game to label a question 'came from an ordinary citizen' or 'came from Beltway media.' Hilarity ensues and I highly recommend.
My grandma used to sing that to me every night before I went to sleep. "Too ra loo Ra Loo Ral. Too ra Loo Ra Li. Close your eyes my sweetheart. That's an Irish lullaby." (I know she changed the last part for me xoxoxo)-Nikki
Just how big is the audience for news? How many people actually follow the news?
But more: Dean Baquet’s response to what can be called abuse of “both sidesism” was that his readers could suss out the truth despite his newsroom’s efforts at obfuscation. So I wonder how much of the news audience actually can and do suss out the truth.
Because as I rant nonstop, the establishment press’ distorted reporting has done and is doing real harm.
It's just more proof of the bias of the Corporate Controlled Conservative Press. Note how the DC Press Corpse is full of contempt for Joe! Compare that to how they endlessly sucked up to Trump and repeatedly tried to make nice with him!
The Dems' lack of focus in messaging and the media's penchant to echo Republican nonsense is making it harder than it should be to clean up the Trumpian mess. Classic example is referring to the cash aspect of the Relief Act as stimulus checks instead of RELIEF checks. Stimulus suggests the checks are some sort of economic sleight of hand - the preferred Republican view - rather than desperately needed assistance to struggling Americans. But Dems and the media go along with "stimulus checks," just like they failed to balk at hypocritical and loaded terms such as "pro-life" and "illegal immigrant." I think Joe Biden is the only Dem who consistently refers to relief checks. Where are the Dems who can instill some messaging discipline? (Dancing on Andrew Cuomo's grave?)
Senator Raphael Warnock's speech on the floor yesterday should be the anthem for fighting RQP's. As someone said yesterday, the only platform that RQP's have is to cheat, steal and lie. That's it.
Something reasonable people tend to dismiss too easily is the fact that giving the media license to use morally judgemental language is a double edged sword, with no take-backs. It is what separates Boehlert's own 'media criticism' from newsroom journalism. Anyone who needs it spelled out that "Republican voter restrictions" means voter suppression targeted at Black Americans isn't going to be open to that perspective, and will use such reporting to dismiss not just that one description, but everything from that source that they wish to disagree with.
Words matter, yes, but not based on their "definition", but their *meaning*, which is never as simple as one paraphrased dictionary entry or synonym. It is not what word you use to label something, but WHY you are using that word to describe it, that communicates meaning in language. I see Eric struggling with this constantly, as do most other honest and intelligent people. There is a better approach than the postmodern linguistics you have been taught, and it can make you smarter and happier if you manage to learn it.
Or Dennis Day singing Too-Ra-Loo-Ra-Loo-Ral at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5wa2qToEI which my dear old Irish Granny, Gertie McGarrity, liked so much more than white tie tenors.
What’s driving the media hesitation?
If our failed political press followed their own style guide and wrote clearly, simply, and directly it would mean calling Republicans racists for wanting to suppress voters. It’s Jim Crow revisited.
They won’t do it because then they would have to admit that they’ve been wrong about one of our two political parties since at least the Reagan Years, and that won’t happen.
I agree with this article and would add that making it hard to vote should always be framed as anti-democratic, authoritarian actions. I would also like repeated reminders that this started long before Trump. Bush the First vetoed the Motor Voter Bill because it makes it easier for poor people to register. (Clinton later signed it.) The Bush II DOJ fired several Republican US Attorneys who had refused to bring phony voter fraud cases against Democrats. Gerrymandering to dilute Democrats’ votes has a long history — you should see the crazy shape of my Congressional District. Putting fewer polling places in Democratic areas is another longtime tactic and it hasn’t just been used in minority communities. Remember the long voter lines in 2004 in Gambier, Ohio? Students from Kenyon College waited hours to vote for Kerry because the Ohio Sec of State allotted only one polling place to that liberal, mostly white college. A friend’s daughter waited 12 hours to vote that day.
This is off topic but I am extremely frustrated by the reports I am seeing about the newly released report detailing Russian interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections. The report makes it clear that the Russians were able to get their disinformation into our media but that is getting spun by reporters as rightwing media. I am sure they all know that the Biden/Ukraine slander which the report says originated with Russia was first peddled by Steve Bannon’s right hand man Peter Schweitzer. Schweitzer was the first to report those lies in his book “Secret Empires”. His good pal John Solomon then repeated those phony accusation in “The Hill”. The Times and WaPo picked up the story from that.
Bannon and Schweitzer had used the same playbook in 2016 with their smears of the Clinton Foundation. Schweitzer wrote the book “Clinton Cash” then he and Bannon got both the Times and Post to publish those false accusations and misleading innuendo. The most serious accusation was that Hillary had gotten our government to approve the sale of the Uranium One mining company to Russia in order to benefit a major shareholder who was also a big CF donor.
The recently released report about Russian interference in 2016 and 2020 makes it clear that the Biden-Ukraine story was created by Russian intelligence which. Bannon and Schweitzer were clearly their conduit to the mainstream media. I would bet Russians were also the source of the Clinton Foundation/ Uranium One lies and that Bannon was doing their bidding by getting the NY Times and Post to buy into those lies.
In 2019 the widely respected Jane Mayer reported on this scam of Bannon and Schweitzer but reporters have chosen to ignore those facts so they can pretend they it was just the right wing media that was complicit in spreading Russian disinformation.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-invention-of-the-conspiracy-theory-on-biden-and-ukraine
I don’t understand the hesitancy to name a spade a spade, suppression, suppression. What an important and terrifically newsy/historic story; a story of our times. How is this less important than the number of pressers Biden has held? Do any journalists read PressRun? They should.
The media is not “unequipped” to accurately portray voter suppression. Elias saying the media is unequipped is the verbal equivalent of the media referring to voter suppression as voting restrictions. The correct word is ‘unwilling’
I am personally tired of hearing about the "misinformation" or "misrepresentation" of voter fraud. Why doesn't NPR, for example, call it what it is? A lie. The lie that there was widespread voter fraud. The lie that these states are basing their laws on.
I've begun to wonder if being admitted to the DC political media brothel means first you have to make sure you have gotten an A in Euphemisms 101 before you can graduate to Sucking Up 102.
On Monday's Pod Save America, they played a game to label a question 'came from an ordinary citizen' or 'came from Beltway media.' Hilarity ensues and I highly recommend.
My grandma used to sing that to me every night before I went to sleep. "Too ra loo Ra Loo Ral. Too ra Loo Ra Li. Close your eyes my sweetheart. That's an Irish lullaby." (I know she changed the last part for me xoxoxo)-Nikki
I wonder...:
Just how big is the audience for news? How many people actually follow the news?
But more: Dean Baquet’s response to what can be called abuse of “both sidesism” was that his readers could suss out the truth despite his newsroom’s efforts at obfuscation. So I wonder how much of the news audience actually can and do suss out the truth.
Because as I rant nonstop, the establishment press’ distorted reporting has done and is doing real harm.
It's just more proof of the bias of the Corporate Controlled Conservative Press. Note how the DC Press Corpse is full of contempt for Joe! Compare that to how they endlessly sucked up to Trump and repeatedly tried to make nice with him!
I had the great eat pleasure to see and hear the Tenors live. Makes the goosebumps rise.
The Dems' lack of focus in messaging and the media's penchant to echo Republican nonsense is making it harder than it should be to clean up the Trumpian mess. Classic example is referring to the cash aspect of the Relief Act as stimulus checks instead of RELIEF checks. Stimulus suggests the checks are some sort of economic sleight of hand - the preferred Republican view - rather than desperately needed assistance to struggling Americans. But Dems and the media go along with "stimulus checks," just like they failed to balk at hypocritical and loaded terms such as "pro-life" and "illegal immigrant." I think Joe Biden is the only Dem who consistently refers to relief checks. Where are the Dems who can instill some messaging discipline? (Dancing on Andrew Cuomo's grave?)
Senator Raphael Warnock's speech on the floor yesterday should be the anthem for fighting RQP's. As someone said yesterday, the only platform that RQP's have is to cheat, steal and lie. That's it.
Something reasonable people tend to dismiss too easily is the fact that giving the media license to use morally judgemental language is a double edged sword, with no take-backs. It is what separates Boehlert's own 'media criticism' from newsroom journalism. Anyone who needs it spelled out that "Republican voter restrictions" means voter suppression targeted at Black Americans isn't going to be open to that perspective, and will use such reporting to dismiss not just that one description, but everything from that source that they wish to disagree with.
Words matter, yes, but not based on their "definition", but their *meaning*, which is never as simple as one paraphrased dictionary entry or synonym. It is not what word you use to label something, but WHY you are using that word to describe it, that communicates meaning in language. I see Eric struggling with this constantly, as do most other honest and intelligent people. There is a better approach than the postmodern linguistics you have been taught, and it can make you smarter and happier if you manage to learn it.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
Or Dennis Day singing Too-Ra-Loo-Ra-Loo-Ral at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5wa2qToEI which my dear old Irish Granny, Gertie McGarrity, liked so much more than white tie tenors.
Or Bing Crosby at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhVIMAiKZ-A