Theissen playing oddsmaker over a VP getting elected without noting that a president has been elected to non-consecutive terms only once in our nation’s history, and he wasn’t a flailing treasonous autocrat.
I'm breaking my rule to never comment twice on the same post but I just gotta. I love Digby, but over at Hullabaloo she says "You could not blame her. That election year was the worst. It was the “but her emails” campaign and we all know how the political media dropped the ball"
BULLSHIT! The political media DID NOT drop the ball (sorry for caps, but they're warranted for this one).
The political media did exactly what they intended to do, destroy Clinton and elect the Republican Daddy that they're always pining for. They were entirely successful in their project of destroying Clinton and they have their sights set on doing the same to Harris.
Fuckers. I try to refrain from extreme remarks for FFS if someone burned the NYT, Washington Post, et. al to the fucking ground it would be a positive for the rest of humanity. Perhaps Biden can order a drone strike? HA HA... I kid. (on the square)
This NYT interjection in their running commentary really gives away how cynically and off kilter they are seeing this:
It is clear from this interview that Harris feels warmly toward Biden — or at least that she feels it is good politics for her to make it appear that she has warm feelings for him.
"The Guardian suggested that the CNN interview would prove a “key test of” her “credibility.” I repeat: She’s the vice president, a former senator and attorney general. She’s damn credible."
Right! This is so infuriating. What credibility markers are we looking for here, other than being a white man?
I've never taken any journalism courses, so could be wrong, but I've heard that Journalism 101 is to never make yourself the story. If I heard right, the legacy media is failing, because their hissy fits over first President Biden, and then, VP Harris, not sitting down for an interview with one of them, and, then, in each case, moving the goalposts, is very much making the story all about them. No wonder they are becoming irrelevant.
I not only studied journalism, I worked as a journalist for several years at major newspapers and *I 100 percent agree with you!* I can't tell whether this is the way the legacy media has always been and I just didn't know it because I was part of the machine, or whether they've gotten worst since I was a reporter several decades ago. Either way, much of the mainstream media is shitting itself. They need to either actually try to conduct yourself as if your objective, or be like much of the mainstream media in, say Europe, and stop pretending that you don't have allegiances or aren't just trying to gin up sales.
That’s an excellent question. I’ve been out of journalism for almost 40 years now, so you should take that into account. We did talk about ethics in my classes. But my own feeling, which grew after I left the profession, is that US journalists are way too married to the myth of their own objectivity. They’re human beings; they have their personal and professional likes and dislikes, but many of them try to tell themselves that they can set those thoughts and feelings aside in the reporting and writing they do. As a result, when they do make mistakes (the Iraq Invasion and Gulf War are very good examples) they try to give excuses and almost never take honest ownership of their blindness and failure to call themselves to account. In other words, they often pretend they don’t have biases instead of admitting their biases and doing their best to be accurate.
And every time I hear that journalists should be “balanced,” I want to clutch at the roots of what little hair I still have. So often it means saying what one side said and then countering that with what the other side, even if you have good reason to believe that one of the sides is lying and manipulating you. It means treating both sides as if they equally make sense when you know full well that they don’t. And this process makes it extremely hard for readers to know that one side isn’t being genuine.
Thank you, Stephen. You always provide the kind of thoughtful, sane, rational, and often hilarious analysis that is sorely lacking in the MSM. You have no idea how much I appreciate that. Whenever I watch legacy media It feels like I’m living in a sci-fi movie like Invasion of the Body Snatchers or They Live and I’m the only one who has the special glasses. I am so glad to know that other people have the special glasses too.
I kinda love how the Republicans like to tell us how Democrats just don’t understand the optics of something. They apparently don’t realize their perception isn’t the universal perception.
Any undecided voter who thinks it’s bad for a presidential candidate to sit for an interview with her VP candidate was not going to vote for a woman in the first place, if they voted at all. And how a Republican perceives Harris is not at all important, because they weren’t going to vote for her either. Seriously, McCain. There was no damage to women overall from Harris being interviewed with Walz. Take your concern trolling and “worry” about something that actually matters. Maybe go with the effect on children of witnessing domestic violence, or the lack of women in boardrooms, or teacher salaries - all places where the visuals of a woman’s status affects those watching.
I’m going with Meghan McCain is a hypocrite. She can’t do any kind of media without invoking her father. I guess even in death, she needs him to prop her up. 🙄
From time to time I look her up to see if she’s redeemed herself. Shocker: she hasn’t. I’m not sure how she can stay married to a man who supports the guy who denigrated her dad and called him and hundreds of thousands of his peers suckers and losers.
I consider the corporate press the enemy. I'm glad democrats have finally figured it out too. And bullshit if the MSM doesn't want another Trump term, the NYT and Washington Post are practically on their knees begging for it. They'd burn the USA down for a fucking dollar.
Some say that the legacy media will be among the first targets if trump gets back in the WH. Those people have a far higher opinion of the legacy media than I do, because I say that they will continue to debase themselves to keep their cushy jobs and face no consequences.
I think her comment was perfect. If she aid racism, the media would have lost their minds and it would be all about that. Instead, she made it clear what she thinks of his pettiness.
Recall that Bash’s response was something like ‘that’s it?’, like she couldn’t believe Kamala was going to stay cool and classy.
I think you are absolutely correct. I should have more properly said (because it wasn’t meant to be a criticism*) that I wish we could call out Trump’s racism, and racism in general, for what it is.
Somehow these days, calling out racism is considered racist (or, a phrase I really hate, “playing the race card”).
*Also she is, quite possibly, the smartest person I’ve ever seen run for President and I’m a silly dumbass by comparison.
ha! i hear you, everybody who takes public service seriously makes me feel like a silly dumbass. I'm an introvert in the decaying body of a (W.E.I.R.D.) hero, who majored in theatre and can't audition for shit, tested really high as a kid but was embarrassingly late to the party of rational skepticism.
nah, that's replayable as 'playing the race card'. her campaign is deftly providing zero troll fodder, which is why MAGQP horseshit has been extra-desperate for the past month.
i mean it infuriates me every day that an entire party is in scumsucking idiocracy rhetoric strategy mode, but i wish i were more active/imaginative at finding ways to fight it. i appreciate you putting you reactions on the table here and triggering my thoughts ✊🏼
“Last night, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Harris, whose mother immigrated to the U.S. from India and whose father immigrated from Jamaica, to respond to Trump’s suggestion that she “happened to turn Black” for political advantage, “questioning a core part of your identity.” Harris responded: “Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please,” and she laughed. “That’s it?” Bash asked. “That’s it,” Harris answered.
Harris’s refusal to accept the MAGA terms of engagement, along with the exuberant support for Harris and Walz, has Trump, Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, and MAGA Republicans reeling. “ Heather Cox Richardson
just to be clear, i concur with your original sentiment but more like "i wish we lived in a world where she could reply that clearly and it wouldn't be troll feeding" but of course in that world the question wouldn't have been asked in the first place ...
"Harris was delightful and charming during her interview with The Late Show’s Stephen Colbert in March 2023."
I misread this because of the line break and wondered how he'd died.
"Fifteen minutes in, I thought, I don’t know if I’m getting what I need to here, and this might be the last time we talk — and it was.”
What he needed to get was pablum that was vague enough to have his fellow journalists spin to mean whatever they wanted it to.
Theissen playing oddsmaker over a VP getting elected without noting that a president has been elected to non-consecutive terms only once in our nation’s history, and he wasn’t a flailing treasonous autocrat.
Also (& apologies is someone already made this point…) Al Gore WON the election.
Practice from courtroom perhaps?
She has no problem capturing an audience and making her points.
While the nightmare talks sharks and Hannibal.
I'm breaking my rule to never comment twice on the same post but I just gotta. I love Digby, but over at Hullabaloo she says "You could not blame her. That election year was the worst. It was the “but her emails” campaign and we all know how the political media dropped the ball"
BULLSHIT! The political media DID NOT drop the ball (sorry for caps, but they're warranted for this one).
The political media did exactly what they intended to do, destroy Clinton and elect the Republican Daddy that they're always pining for. They were entirely successful in their project of destroying Clinton and they have their sights set on doing the same to Harris.
Fuckers. I try to refrain from extreme remarks for FFS if someone burned the NYT, Washington Post, et. al to the fucking ground it would be a positive for the rest of humanity. Perhaps Biden can order a drone strike? HA HA... I kid. (on the square)
This NYT interjection in their running commentary really gives away how cynically and off kilter they are seeing this:
It is clear from this interview that Harris feels warmly toward Biden — or at least that she feels it is good politics for her to make it appear that she has warm feelings for him.
"The Guardian suggested that the CNN interview would prove a “key test of” her “credibility.” I repeat: She’s the vice president, a former senator and attorney general. She’s damn credible."
Right! This is so infuriating. What credibility markers are we looking for here, other than being a white man?
I am disappointed in The Guardian.
I’ve gotten to the point where I think Thiessen is just a troll as opposed to a conservative with a platform.
you mean like the entire last session of Clatence Thomas opinions?
Here was my takeaway of Bash’s questions:
“Mu God, it’s full of Stupid”….
That is all.
I've never taken any journalism courses, so could be wrong, but I've heard that Journalism 101 is to never make yourself the story. If I heard right, the legacy media is failing, because their hissy fits over first President Biden, and then, VP Harris, not sitting down for an interview with one of them, and, then, in each case, moving the goalposts, is very much making the story all about them. No wonder they are becoming irrelevant.
I not only studied journalism, I worked as a journalist for several years at major newspapers and *I 100 percent agree with you!* I can't tell whether this is the way the legacy media has always been and I just didn't know it because I was part of the machine, or whether they've gotten worst since I was a reporter several decades ago. Either way, much of the mainstream media is shitting itself. They need to either actually try to conduct yourself as if your objective, or be like much of the mainstream media in, say Europe, and stop pretending that you don't have allegiances or aren't just trying to gin up sales.
I’m curiousdid your journalism classes ever include courses on ethics, which is something that seems to be absent in the mainstream media.
That’s an excellent question. I’ve been out of journalism for almost 40 years now, so you should take that into account. We did talk about ethics in my classes. But my own feeling, which grew after I left the profession, is that US journalists are way too married to the myth of their own objectivity. They’re human beings; they have their personal and professional likes and dislikes, but many of them try to tell themselves that they can set those thoughts and feelings aside in the reporting and writing they do. As a result, when they do make mistakes (the Iraq Invasion and Gulf War are very good examples) they try to give excuses and almost never take honest ownership of their blindness and failure to call themselves to account. In other words, they often pretend they don’t have biases instead of admitting their biases and doing their best to be accurate.
And every time I hear that journalists should be “balanced,” I want to clutch at the roots of what little hair I still have. So often it means saying what one side said and then countering that with what the other side, even if you have good reason to believe that one of the sides is lying and manipulating you. It means treating both sides as if they equally make sense when you know full well that they don’t. And this process makes it extremely hard for readers to know that one side isn’t being genuine.
Thank you! I’ve wondered about this for years. There really should be a dedicated course required each year.
“Married to the myth of their own objectivity” explains it perfectly!
Thank you, Stephen. You always provide the kind of thoughtful, sane, rational, and often hilarious analysis that is sorely lacking in the MSM. You have no idea how much I appreciate that. Whenever I watch legacy media It feels like I’m living in a sci-fi movie like Invasion of the Body Snatchers or They Live and I’m the only one who has the special glasses. I am so glad to know that other people have the special glasses too.
Thank you!
I kinda love how the Republicans like to tell us how Democrats just don’t understand the optics of something. They apparently don’t realize their perception isn’t the universal perception.
Any undecided voter who thinks it’s bad for a presidential candidate to sit for an interview with her VP candidate was not going to vote for a woman in the first place, if they voted at all. And how a Republican perceives Harris is not at all important, because they weren’t going to vote for her either. Seriously, McCain. There was no damage to women overall from Harris being interviewed with Walz. Take your concern trolling and “worry” about something that actually matters. Maybe go with the effect on children of witnessing domestic violence, or the lack of women in boardrooms, or teacher salaries - all places where the visuals of a woman’s status affects those watching.
Or maybe she can opine about how DT’s re-post of the blowjob meme coarsens the public square.
I’m going with Meghan McCain is a hypocrite. She can’t do any kind of media without invoking her father. I guess even in death, she needs him to prop her up. 🙄
From time to time I look her up to see if she’s redeemed herself. Shocker: she hasn’t. I’m not sure how she can stay married to a man who supports the guy who denigrated her dad and called him and hundreds of thousands of his peers suckers and losers.
I consider the corporate press the enemy. I'm glad democrats have finally figured it out too. And bullshit if the MSM doesn't want another Trump term, the NYT and Washington Post are practically on their knees begging for it. They'd burn the USA down for a fucking dollar.
Some say that the legacy media will be among the first targets if trump gets back in the WH. Those people have a far higher opinion of the legacy media than I do, because I say that they will continue to debase themselves to keep their cushy jobs and face no consequences.
“When Bash asked her about the racist sludge Trump’s hurled her way, Harris simply replied, ‘Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please.’”
Minor quibble, but I wish she would have said, “Same old tired racism…” and called it what it was.
I think her comment was perfect. If she aid racism, the media would have lost their minds and it would be all about that. Instead, she made it clear what she thinks of his pettiness.
Recall that Bash’s response was something like ‘that’s it?’, like she couldn’t believe Kamala was going to stay cool and classy.
I think you are absolutely correct. I should have more properly said (because it wasn’t meant to be a criticism*) that I wish we could call out Trump’s racism, and racism in general, for what it is.
Somehow these days, calling out racism is considered racist (or, a phrase I really hate, “playing the race card”).
*Also she is, quite possibly, the smartest person I’ve ever seen run for President and I’m a silly dumbass by comparison.
ha! i hear you, everybody who takes public service seriously makes me feel like a silly dumbass. I'm an introvert in the decaying body of a (W.E.I.R.D.) hero, who majored in theatre and can't audition for shit, tested really high as a kid but was embarrassingly late to the party of rational skepticism.
nah, that's replayable as 'playing the race card'. her campaign is deftly providing zero troll fodder, which is why MAGQP horseshit has been extra-desperate for the past month.
You’re right of course. I had already decided that and then saw how it was playing out in the media and it is just like you pointed out. Well said.
i mean it infuriates me every day that an entire party is in scumsucking idiocracy rhetoric strategy mode, but i wish i were more active/imaginative at finding ways to fight it. i appreciate you putting you reactions on the table here and triggering my thoughts ✊🏼
You’re in good company:
“Last night, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Harris, whose mother immigrated to the U.S. from India and whose father immigrated from Jamaica, to respond to Trump’s suggestion that she “happened to turn Black” for political advantage, “questioning a core part of your identity.” Harris responded: “Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please,” and she laughed. “That’s it?” Bash asked. “That’s it,” Harris answered.
Harris’s refusal to accept the MAGA terms of engagement, along with the exuberant support for Harris and Walz, has Trump, Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, and MAGA Republicans reeling. “ Heather Cox Richardson
just to be clear, i concur with your original sentiment but more like "i wish we lived in a world where she could reply that clearly and it wouldn't be troll feeding" but of course in that world the question wouldn't have been asked in the first place ...
No I got you, and agree, just highlighting that your analysis was spot on. Thank you.
"More sad mumblings from a sad man!"
"More of that crap again?"
"His act is getting old, shouldn't he be trading it in for a younger act?"
'Goal Posts Movers of America' 🤣
This is the quality reportage I come to this blog for!
Need more "like" button!