Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3458

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Administrator

 

I haven't seen the interview yet, but to be fair, Kamala shouldn't be grilled?  She shouldn't be given tough questions?  Maybe I'm just not as pessimistic as you are but I highly doubt the majority of the media and journalists are rooting for Trump to win.  That just doesn't make any sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Probably not the majority of individual journalists, but it does make sense that the higher up types would. Trump brings in the money by being a continual train wreck that people can't look away from. Psychopaths gravitate to the CEO position and to journalism as well. Just sayin'.

https://www.cbc.ca/doczone/m_features/psychopaths-top-10-and-bottom-10-professions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

You're in Canada, right? Their media isn't like ours, sadly. That's about all I can respond with. Several network heads have bragged about how good Trump is for them money-wise. One of the head honchos at the New York Times basically writes press releases for the Trumps, and her mother works for the Kushner family. They aren't very subtle. 

 

Anyway, in other news:

 

 

Edited by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

 

I pay some attention to American media and the majority of the time, they're taking down Trump.  The. NYT is always putting out negative stories about Trump. Sure there might be the occasional pro Trump stuff.  I just don't believe the media is actively trying to reelect Trump.  Don't see it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I had an associate from another board that I used to post on who was Canadian and he was a liberal and he thought the media was too hard on Trump too. He thought the Democrats needed to compromise with Trump more when it came to the funding to the Wall. I told him that you don't live in America and you don't see how much the media caters to Trump. It got me to thinking, does Canada have Fox News, OANN, conservative talk radio and other oulets? They don't realize that Trump has many enablers that want to see him re-elected and do the dirty work that they have wanted to do for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Trump is horrible of course, but I have to also admit that from my view on American TV news media, I don't see a pro-Trump bias either. I have CNN on the telly constantly and CNN is usually always going in on him and having guests that are anti-republican. I know it doesn't make a difference in the US, but most of the media here is also clearly very against him too or at least thinks he's bad for conservatism.

 

We do get Fox News here in Australia and I assume that's very pro-Trump, but I never watch that to know. I do see pro-Trump/Republican  articles from the NY Times and Washington Post, but there are also just as many anti-Trump stories.

 

I guess maybe you have to live there, but from my point of view, I don't see it. He obviously has enablers in conservative media circles that will do anything for him, but I don't see it more mainstream news outlets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

You don't live here, so sorry, you don't get it. They may not all love Trump, but they love what he does for their business and ratings. And the mainstream media has been cowed by the right wing and Republicans in this country for being too 'biased' against them and elitist since 1984 when Reagan won in a wipeout; many of the elite media are of that era or grew up around it. And the right wing spent most of the '90s convincing the media they were too out of touch with the middle of the country and the American heartland, and viciously attacking media for any hint of 'bias'. As such, because of this generational conditioning, they slant a great deal of coverage to GOP talking points. Many may disdain Trump individually, but ultimately they adhere to soft GOP principles and POV unless forced not to. There is a double standard for Democrats and Republicans - Democrats are expected to take hard questions and always answer how they'll pay for any even speculative program, while Republicans are never challenged on how to balance the budget or why they're making more tax cuts for billionaires. They are allowed to spew talking points largely unchallenged in live interviews (note the shock when Chris Wallace and even longtime access journalist Jonathan Swan actually held Trump to the fire), while Democrats, even when they offer a full vision, are called 'too prepared' and yet also 'not for anything but anti-Trump' (or in the past, anti-Bush). Why? Because the GOP has drilled into the media that they are the party of both authentic Americans and fiscal hawks, and the Democrats are elite and pretentious. The media sees themselves in Democrats and so runs from it, overcorrects and sanitizes and normalizes Republican behavior. NYT headlines are regularly softened; note that they still refuse to use the word 'lie' much re: Trump. They print his wild allegations as credible by not immediately refuting them in the headlines or opening paragraphs, which is often what people read and internalize. After the white supremacist riots in Charlottesville, they attempted to call him 'the comforter in chief' when he egged on the Nazis. And CNN "attacks" right wing guests, but it has most of those guests on their regular payroll as commentators. Having them on to spew their talking points and then have an anchor act shocked and appalled is the equivalent of pro wrestling, all fake - especially when they allow Trump to run his events live, but rarely give Democrats equal time. CNN once held on an empty podium for Trump for almost an hour waiting for him to show up. They don't do that for Democrats - ever.

 

When Michelle Wolf called prior Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on enabling Trump's endless lies, his fascist maneuvers, bigotry and putting children in cages at the (useless) WH press corps gala, the press corps and every major media figure at the Times and most networks called her outrageous and said she'd gone too far, but she was right. When Sanders left her post, these same media figures joined her at her private farewell party at a local DC bar - so long as no one gave their names to the rest of the press. As Kellyanne Conway leaves, you're already seeing media figures cheering her 'leaving for her children' and congratulating her on a job well done. Why? Because Kellyanne Conway, a racist piece of right wing trash who spent every day on the job lying to the American public and calling these journalists liars and enemies of the state, just like Sanders before her, is a primary source for access and on-background info in the Trump administration to most of these journalists and media figures. It is a game. They are friends and Conway will have a regular paid talking head post on CNN and MSNBC within a year, just like the rest. It is a club, and we are not in it.

 

Without a full understanding of our daily intake and how our media got here, you have no idea what kind of subtle and overt bias we face everyday.

 

 

That is always the media framing for Democrats, no matter the issue or what insane shít the GOP does - 'why can't the Democrats compromise?'

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, but we also have SkyNews which is just as corrosive as Fox (and owned by Murdoch). They are doing as much damage to Australia as Fox has done to the US and I hold them 50% responsible for the Libs winning last year. Thank God we are half way through their term. I envy America being so close to a (hopeful) course correction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Thanks for honoring Ruth Buzzi. She was a treasure. I'm glad DAYS let her have some fun. I remember Imogene Coca complaining about ATWT just giving her a drab guest part.
    • It's such a delicious set of circumstances that I'm actually a little surprised that I can't think of ones that exactly match. I've just got a couple of close but no cigars (the reveal wasn't public, like when Alexis told Dominique at her and Garrett's engagement party that Garrett lied about being married; or the revealer didn't come up with the idea of the party). Maybe I need to think some more about it.
    • Not too shabby, making her mark in only six episodes. There's a project for the soap historians -- characters with the least episodes/most impact.
    • Which could make sense , except that we have seen Mariah function for years w/o any real residue pain from her upbringing. Josh decides to randomly make it a thing, when a good writer might foreshadow that for months. It's not like he's just arrived at the show. He's been there for years . Everything seems to be thought out only a few weeks ahead. It's like Phyllis all freaky from being kidnapped when she has done a million other things that didn't seem to bother her at all.
    • Unrelated, sort of, but he looks absolutely nothing like Amanda Setton or Dominic Zamprogna so it's kind of hilarious they decided to make Gio their kid.  It's very clear this was not the original origin story for Gio when they cast him. He is a very handsome guy though. 
    • I tend to agree, although going back to OLTL, Frank has so often cast guys who are meant to be attractive yet come across as cold and dead, I'm surprised he managed to get one who has a bit of a pulse.
    • For all I care, the boy can parade around in a g-string.  It won't make this show suck any less.
    • AMC was about a decade later so things may have changed by then, although maybe they never approached her anyway. She joined Santa Barbara in 1985, when they didn't seem interested in bringing back Hope. SB ended in late 1992, so JFP could have asked her back, but I doubt she did. For as much as JFP clearly had some use for Rick Hearst given that she hired him on GH and kept him around as often as she could, I don't think she ever used Alan-Michael well. I can't see Elvera as Delia, but she could have worked well as Faith - she had a glimpse of a strong personality alongside warmth, which only one Faith ever managed (Catherine Hicks).
    • IIRC, FC reruns aired for awhile on Lifetime, way before the network became the Women in Peril Channel, lol.
    • PAM!! YES!!! You have jogged my memory. She worked at Cedars. She's mentioned in a write-up of Tim's history in the show. It says she was a nurse, but I seem to remember she was a secretary at Cedars, working for either Ed or Sarah. (It's almost 50 years ago, so I definitely could be wrong). I'm certain she was an unwed mother. I recall reading an interview with the actress, Maureen Silliman (I looked it up, that's her correct name, LOL). She started on the show just before the Dobsons started writing it. She was shocked to get a script that said her character had been pregnant since she hit town. I remember a scene where she told Tim she was going to leave SF for a better job for her daughter's sake (really, I think she was upset he was serious about Rita). I don't remember them getting married and leaving town, but according to "Who's Who in Springfield" that's how the characters were written out. Mattson did All My Children for several years, so she might have been persuadable. Here's an interesting factoid I recently learned on these message boards: Elvera Roussel was in the running to play Delia on RH when the show first hit the air. How wild is it that Mattson played Delia for a while? (Though from what I saw of her performance, she was miscast). It's hard to know if Roussel would have been a good Delia. You'd think she would have been better suited to playing Faith Coleridge, but who knows? She didn't get to show a whole lot of range as Hope.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy