Jump to content

The Media/Journalism Thread


Faulkner

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I agree - and believe me, I've argued that exact point with her many times.  But my mom is one of those if-it's-on-the-Internet-then-it-must-be-true types.  You can't win with people like that, no matter how hard you try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I agree, but these are the people who will be the face of voters for the press. Harris can't do anything right - they set her up for failure at every turn.

It's always BS, but it's the type of story that tends to stick. People look for reasons to cling to Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's not gonna stick for anyone who just doesn't want to vote for her. And I'm sorry, but there is no one coming out of last night in media claiming Harris failed, including the Times and Fox News. It was a rout. Jeremy Peters recycling 'undecideds' is all they have left. We can know the media puts the thumb on the scale and still admit that they have ceded to that reality from last night.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's true.  But I'm also seeing more and more people in this country realizing that the establishment/mainstream media is hopelessly corrupt and therefore not to be trusted.  That's why the MSM are so pissy right now: they've hit at Harris and Walz many times, and so far, nothing's landed, because people are slowly and gradually catching on.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exactly.  Those idiots are never going to vote for her, no matter what.  They can pretend to be "undecided" all they want, but again, people are starting to catch on.

 

Of COURSE they didn't fact-check her, because she actually had facts and logic on her side.  All Trump has is what he heard Floyd the Barber discuss with Andy, Barney and Gomer Pyle at his barber shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it's also important to credit media people when they do well. I think David Muir and Linsey Davis were very good last night as moderators. And I think most of the analysis on the major networks and the major papers refreshingly did not equivocate: They were very clear on who won and why. I don't lose sight of what Beltway media is as a larger organism, but I don't think each journalist or commentator is created equal or unequal. MSNBC is a for-profit network which deals with its own issues and mandates, but a lot of their on-air people (like Joy Reid, like Symone Sanders-Townsend, like Maddow, O'Donnell and more) still do not want Trump to win. We can say the same for other people at CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. You never let your guard down in critiquing media, but you allow for a changing situation and nuanced individuals.

The other key is this: Corporate media worships power and hates a loser. They saw power last night and then they saw a loser, and power is what they gravitated to.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't understand Megyn Kelly

Please register in order to view this content

I mean, obviously she's a hack for cash. 

But, she made her name off of criticizing Trump at the 2016 debate.  Now she's trying to pretend fairness is her main issue. 

She was a never-Trumpster.  Now, she's so fearful of transgender people interacting with her kid, that she supports him (as if the president can intervene at her daughter's private school?)

Like, is this the only way she can get press for whatever media outlet still pays her?  And, honestly, does she deserve the amount of focus that she still gets every time she says something dumb for clickbait?

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But, if Megyn Kelly has zero credibility and zero influence (to which I agree), why does she still command multiple headlines every time the media needs to quote a right wing pundit?

Given the recent scandal of Russia paying conservative YouTubers like Dave Rubin $400,000.00 to spread disinformation, the right is doing itself no favors by furthering the narrative that the only reason a person would promote conservative political ideas is for personal profit. 

Also this

Please register in order to view this content

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

She's "settling for more." 

Please register in order to view this content

 

You can tell peeps like Jesse Watters want so badly to attack Kamala Harris for being yet one more Black woman who made Donald Trump look like dogshit, but even they are smart to know that when you cross that line, the game is over.

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

    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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