The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
#7406
I thought this was good.
Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press - CBS News
Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press - CBS News
The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.
This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.
So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.
And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.
It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?
We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.
You’d think that Trump’s victory – the one we all discounted too far in advance – would lead to a certain newfound humility in the political press. But of course that’s not how it works. To us, speaking broadly, our diagnosis was still basically correct. The demons were just stronger than we realized.
This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!
That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement.
Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological.
That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong.
As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency. Out on the road, we forget to ask the right questions. We can’t even imagine the right question. We go into assignments too certain that what we find will serve to justify our biases. The public’s estimation of the press declines even further -- fewer than one-in-three Americans trust the press, per Gallup -- which starts the cycle anew.
There’s a place for opinionated journalism; in fact, it’s vital. But our causal, profession-wide smugness and protestations of superiority are making us unable to do it well.
Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover.
What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.
We have to fix this, and the broken reasoning behind it. There’s a fleeting fun to gang-ups and groupthink. But it’s not worth what we are losing in the process.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.
This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.
So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.
And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.
It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?
We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.
You’d think that Trump’s victory – the one we all discounted too far in advance – would lead to a certain newfound humility in the political press. But of course that’s not how it works. To us, speaking broadly, our diagnosis was still basically correct. The demons were just stronger than we realized.
This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!
That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement.
Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological.
That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong.
As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency. Out on the road, we forget to ask the right questions. We can’t even imagine the right question. We go into assignments too certain that what we find will serve to justify our biases. The public’s estimation of the press declines even further -- fewer than one-in-three Americans trust the press, per Gallup -- which starts the cycle anew.
There’s a place for opinionated journalism; in fact, it’s vital. But our causal, profession-wide smugness and protestations of superiority are making us unable to do it well.
Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover.
What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.
We have to fix this, and the broken reasoning behind it. There’s a fleeting fun to gang-ups and groupthink. But it’s not worth what we are losing in the process.
#7407
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,518
Total Cats: 4,080
When you really want trump supporters to be violent...
http://www.wwltv.com/mb/news/local/w...-her/351046672
http://www.wwltv.com/mb/news/local/w...-her/351046672
#7408
When you really want trump supporters to be violent...
Lafayette woman faces criminal charges after falsely claiming Trump supporters attacked her | wwltv.com
Lafayette woman faces criminal charges after falsely claiming Trump supporters attacked her | wwltv.com
#7410
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,518
Total Cats: 4,080
NYT is an awful paper:
The New York Times, by the way, has been responsible for headlines like, “Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President” and, “Is There Life After Trump?”
Back in September, the paper even declared – in an article titled “When A Crackpot Runs For President” – that, “we owe it to our readers to signal when we’re writing about a crackpot… especially when he’s a presidential candidate.”
Back in September, the paper even declared – in an article titled “When A Crackpot Runs For President” – that, “we owe it to our readers to signal when we’re writing about a crackpot… especially when he’s a presidential candidate.”
#7413
ARGH !! That second paragraph. What ******* arrogance and lack of accountability!
Clearly it's inconceivable they(media in general) could have played an active role in it. Nope! Obviously, they were "victims" too, having been "lead...to underestimate" by "Trump's shear unconventionality". Gotta love it.
Clearly it's inconceivable they(media in general) could have played an active role in it. Nope! Obviously, they were "victims" too, having been "lead...to underestimate" by "Trump's shear unconventionality". Gotta love it.
#7415
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxne...android-att-us
There are still millions of uncounted ballots that liberals are sure are going to widen the popular vote gap.
I will laugh until I cry if Trump ends up winning that too.
There are still millions of uncounted ballots that liberals are sure are going to widen the popular vote gap.
I will laugh until I cry if Trump ends up winning that too.
#7417
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
The media was clearly on her side but she also received millions of more votes than Bernie did during the primaries.
#7418
I keep seeing the whiners say "boo hoo hoo electoral college B.S., felonillary won the popular vote so trump shouldn't be prezident boo hoo hoo"
Has anyone seen a post showing the opposite? "Here's what the election would look like if each state had exactly one vote/equal representation..."
I'd like to post it to my FB, I'm still trying to troll the losers.
Has anyone seen a post showing the opposite? "Here's what the election would look like if each state had exactly one vote/equal representation..."
I'd like to post it to my FB, I'm still trying to troll the losers.
#7419
Since when? Hillary received 15.8 million vote to Bernie's 12 million.
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
The media was clearly on her side but she also received millions of more votes than Bernie did during the primaries.
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
The media was clearly on her side but she also received millions of more votes than Bernie did during the primaries.
#7420
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,518
Total Cats: 4,080
Top Clinton Aide: Loss 'Most Devastating In U.S. History' | The Daily Caller
Other aides, meanwhile, tried to shift blame for the shocking defeat away from the campaign and onto the media.
“The media always covered her as the person who would be president and therefore tried to eviscerate her before the election, but covered Trump who was someone who was entertaining and sort of gave him a pass,” said Podesta. “We need to reflect and analyze that and put our voices forward.”
Podesta also pointed a finger at FBI Director James Comey, who resurrected the matter of Clinton’s private email server in the final weekend. (RELATED: FBI Still Probing Clinton Foundation)
Podesta said the “dominance of the way [the media] covered the emails” caused them to drown out issues like Trump’s income taxes or his alleged links to Russia.
“The media always covered her as the person who would be president and therefore tried to eviscerate her before the election, but covered Trump who was someone who was entertaining and sort of gave him a pass,” said Podesta. “We need to reflect and analyze that and put our voices forward.”
Podesta also pointed a finger at FBI Director James Comey, who resurrected the matter of Clinton’s private email server in the final weekend. (RELATED: FBI Still Probing Clinton Foundation)
Podesta said the “dominance of the way [the media] covered the emails” caused them to drown out issues like Trump’s income taxes or his alleged links to Russia.