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

    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • It sure was!  With respect, how does that make sense?  These men are young, I don't see that. 
    • I hope this played better than it sounds, because I'm imagining two separate scenes (the attack by Arnie, and later Charles getting shot). In my mind, it should have been a fluid single sequence. I wonder if or how often "bastard" was uttered in this scene. Fare thee well, Christopher Reeve. I've said it before, but pop culture's gain was daytime's definite loss. Imagine seeing HIM day after day, year after year, decade after decade, conceivably until they stopped producing soaps in NYC.   Well, that answers my "bastard" question. Good lord, the roads of Rosehill are packed with high-strung drivers and/or pedestrians. More sequences that I hope played better than they sound.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I think Ben had already left while under Marland and only returned briefly to reconcile with Eve. The whole thing confuses me as I thought for a long time that Eve left the show to go be with him and that was when they reconciled, but it seems like he returned, they got back together, then he left and maybe they were still together until she left to join him? I have no idea.  It does seem like the interim writers were using some characters like Justin and Helena who were quickly dumped under Kobe/Long, which is a shame. Helena is one of those characters who likely always had a shelf life but Rose Alaio was such a vibrant screen presence, if Kobe/Long had just been patient, she likely would have fit in well in the Reva era.
    • Also, the lawsuit story was not the right story to bring Naomi and Bill into a court battle since those types of lawsuits are usually resolved via settlements.
    • I know that Sara did eventually become Carrie's therapist, but I was curious if the show had her make comments regarding Carrie's stunts of making it seem as though Justin was cheating on Jackie.  Given that Justin cheated on Sara with both Jackie and Brandy, I wondered if it was wise of her to counsel Carrie given the conflict of interest involved. @DRW50I think once Adam/Sara end up married.. Marland didn't see any reason to explore Sara's personal life after the actor playing Adam was released.  I know that Sara lasts until at least Christmas 1982 on the show.. but I don't think she ended up staying on for very long into 1983. The period between Marland quitting and Pam Long starting was the perfect time to clean house on characters that had outgrown their usefulness  (i.e. Ben, Evie, Sara, Jennifer, Morgan).. and tying up stories started by Marland that were too complex (Mona Enright, Mark/Jennifer/Amanda triangle).
    • Unpopular opinion:  The focus on the soap opera tropes over the mysteries and crimes was partly what did the show in.  Also, featuring characters not involved in the legal, police, and criminal elements also hurt the show and took away what made it unique. Featuring characters like Jody, Raven, Sky, etc hurt the show long term.  The show ABCified starting in 1976/1977 and then went through a youthification period starting in 1981.  
    • I feel like the lawsuit storyline was resolved quickly because the show didn’t want to spring for more sets.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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