As Maddow said last night, "we are here". The US is no longer a democracy...2 of the 3 branches have been rendered impotent, and it's very likely that SCOTUS will be complicit in its own final neutering. The House could exercise its final power of the purse, but that remedy seems as unlikely as the heralded "inherent contempt" power. I have little faith that the media will change after 3+ years. It seems clear that they will continue to accommodate and whitewash the news to ensure their continued existence. The few exceptions will be obliterated in Trump's 2nd term. There haven't been mass resignations in any institution of government, no one on the Mueller team has been willing to expose what they know, pundits are busy writing books to exploit our national tragedy, and the public is largely a passive observer. My question is what happens next in an autocracy? Trump has another year to address his endless grievances, hollow institutions, fill judicial vacancies with extreme partisans, quash dissent, unleash unlimited propaganda. What else will he do? Trump hasn't even begun to exercise his virtually unlimited 'emergency powers'. Pelosi won't allow another government shutdown...how many compromises will she agree to in order to pass the horrific budget that Trump has proposed? What will Trump do in a 2nd term? Obliterate 'entitlements', align the US with other dictatorships, crush remaining bastions of the free press, and then what? Make Christianity the official religion of the US? Follow Putin's playbook and extort corporations and the 1% for their assets to build a massive fortune and reward his inner circle? There seems to be a lack of imagination as to how nightmarish this country will become, and a collective refusal to use even recent history as a guidepost.
February 14th -- I just listened to your conversation with Michaelangelo Signorile, and I kept thinking out loud --- spot on! One other little thing that I find especially annoying about "journalism" today is the persistent use of speculative language in headlines, especially with reference to the Dem candidates or current issues around 45. I've really stopped reading any new article that contains words like might, could, may, should --- because that isn't news. It is opinion or speculation for the sake of attracting attention and usually brings very little to the conversation. However, if it is clearly an editorial or opinion piece, I will read it.
So thank you for the very informative conversation with Mr. Signoreli today -- it brought me to this page and I have subscribed.
I doubt that the journalists are the issue per se - it's unlikely that they all got "F"s in college, so I'm not that sympathetic to the "they have not yet learned how to cover..." concept. The Upton Sinclair "You can't get a man to understand..." quote is much more likely to be applicable. The journalism/media coverage we see is almost exclusively dependent on big money, and money has no nationality or loyalty.
Coverage is guided directly or obliquely by that consideration. Not just the issues/subscriptions/clicks part, but also tax law and regulatory policy as drivers. To synthesize the concept, if there was a consensus on Wall Street that Trump needed to be removed and the ostensible rule of law restored, it would happen on their schedule and PR would stage manage the process. That consensus does not exist, and the market view is typically short term so that's the forecasting focus. I doubt that they have gamed out systemic collapse.
I have said absolutely nothing new here, only framed the question of "what can be done to affect this?". This is a hard sell, since I do not perceive effective pressure points. Campaigns to reduce advertisement revenue still need to counterbalance the tax and regulation pieces to affect net.
Are there additional dynamics that can be considered?
Talk about speculative language; Language creates thought. Thought drives action. Even Andrea Mitchell’s intro every single day (in 2016) was, “Candidate Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton with the 30,000 email issue.” I’m paraphrasing but not. And Chris Mathews had Kellyann Conway on as “the first successful woman campaign manager,” with what looked like flirting to me. These are “ReFrames!.” When Mathews started this approval gazing for her charms with Omorosa I tweet yelled (I’m now off Twitter, getting my life back) to stop being irresponsible. Media needs to be educated in the use of 1) rhetorical power to control people and 2) what context is. I’ll add 3) self-awareness when one is reporting from the amygdala just to be first (forgetting to ask what is the real context here.). Ex: Russia is behind this, not it’s a Biden thing. I just heard you speak on Joy Reid about the Real Story; and it feels very right that the real story is not told in the news because everyone wants to be first? Does Media speak from its amygdala? It seems like it a lot of the time, cloaking it in cover words like, “alleged.” Words that cloak. Words like alleged become the context and this is wrong. Depositions for law cases use the words to reframe all the time to get people to say things they don’t want to say. Media seems ignorant of their unconscious “ReFraming.” It has to stop. In the Conflict-Peace keeping field, Activist field of study....this type of education is paramount. Is it learned in Journalism??? Terribly upsetting to see someone of Andrea Mitchell’s expertise fall victim to ignorance like this. Joy Reid has somehow evolved into a terrific synthesizer of information and her nimbleness for seeing multiple points of view has kept up.
Our Corporate Controlled Conservative Press wants Trump re-elected and that's why they're also pushing Bernie. They know that Bernie will lose in a landslide.
The CCCP is utterly useless which is why I subscribe to the UK Guardian and The Economist because they actually report the news which is something the Screw York Times hasn't done for years.
Why do I refer to it as the Screw York Times? Answer--they put Judith Miller's lies on the front page inciting us to go to war...a war that killed my son...
As Maddow said last night, "we are here". The US is no longer a democracy...2 of the 3 branches have been rendered impotent, and it's very likely that SCOTUS will be complicit in its own final neutering. The House could exercise its final power of the purse, but that remedy seems as unlikely as the heralded "inherent contempt" power. I have little faith that the media will change after 3+ years. It seems clear that they will continue to accommodate and whitewash the news to ensure their continued existence. The few exceptions will be obliterated in Trump's 2nd term. There haven't been mass resignations in any institution of government, no one on the Mueller team has been willing to expose what they know, pundits are busy writing books to exploit our national tragedy, and the public is largely a passive observer. My question is what happens next in an autocracy? Trump has another year to address his endless grievances, hollow institutions, fill judicial vacancies with extreme partisans, quash dissent, unleash unlimited propaganda. What else will he do? Trump hasn't even begun to exercise his virtually unlimited 'emergency powers'. Pelosi won't allow another government shutdown...how many compromises will she agree to in order to pass the horrific budget that Trump has proposed? What will Trump do in a 2nd term? Obliterate 'entitlements', align the US with other dictatorships, crush remaining bastions of the free press, and then what? Make Christianity the official religion of the US? Follow Putin's playbook and extort corporations and the 1% for their assets to build a massive fortune and reward his inner circle? There seems to be a lack of imagination as to how nightmarish this country will become, and a collective refusal to use even recent history as a guidepost.
February 14th -- I just listened to your conversation with Michaelangelo Signorile, and I kept thinking out loud --- spot on! One other little thing that I find especially annoying about "journalism" today is the persistent use of speculative language in headlines, especially with reference to the Dem candidates or current issues around 45. I've really stopped reading any new article that contains words like might, could, may, should --- because that isn't news. It is opinion or speculation for the sake of attracting attention and usually brings very little to the conversation. However, if it is clearly an editorial or opinion piece, I will read it.
So thank you for the very informative conversation with Mr. Signoreli today -- it brought me to this page and I have subscribed.
I doubt that the journalists are the issue per se - it's unlikely that they all got "F"s in college, so I'm not that sympathetic to the "they have not yet learned how to cover..." concept. The Upton Sinclair "You can't get a man to understand..." quote is much more likely to be applicable. The journalism/media coverage we see is almost exclusively dependent on big money, and money has no nationality or loyalty.
Coverage is guided directly or obliquely by that consideration. Not just the issues/subscriptions/clicks part, but also tax law and regulatory policy as drivers. To synthesize the concept, if there was a consensus on Wall Street that Trump needed to be removed and the ostensible rule of law restored, it would happen on their schedule and PR would stage manage the process. That consensus does not exist, and the market view is typically short term so that's the forecasting focus. I doubt that they have gamed out systemic collapse.
I have said absolutely nothing new here, only framed the question of "what can be done to affect this?". This is a hard sell, since I do not perceive effective pressure points. Campaigns to reduce advertisement revenue still need to counterbalance the tax and regulation pieces to affect net.
Are there additional dynamics that can be considered?
Talk about speculative language; Language creates thought. Thought drives action. Even Andrea Mitchell’s intro every single day (in 2016) was, “Candidate Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton with the 30,000 email issue.” I’m paraphrasing but not. And Chris Mathews had Kellyann Conway on as “the first successful woman campaign manager,” with what looked like flirting to me. These are “ReFrames!.” When Mathews started this approval gazing for her charms with Omorosa I tweet yelled (I’m now off Twitter, getting my life back) to stop being irresponsible. Media needs to be educated in the use of 1) rhetorical power to control people and 2) what context is. I’ll add 3) self-awareness when one is reporting from the amygdala just to be first (forgetting to ask what is the real context here.). Ex: Russia is behind this, not it’s a Biden thing. I just heard you speak on Joy Reid about the Real Story; and it feels very right that the real story is not told in the news because everyone wants to be first? Does Media speak from its amygdala? It seems like it a lot of the time, cloaking it in cover words like, “alleged.” Words that cloak. Words like alleged become the context and this is wrong. Depositions for law cases use the words to reframe all the time to get people to say things they don’t want to say. Media seems ignorant of their unconscious “ReFraming.” It has to stop. In the Conflict-Peace keeping field, Activist field of study....this type of education is paramount. Is it learned in Journalism??? Terribly upsetting to see someone of Andrea Mitchell’s expertise fall victim to ignorance like this. Joy Reid has somehow evolved into a terrific synthesizer of information and her nimbleness for seeing multiple points of view has kept up.
Our Corporate Controlled Conservative Press wants Trump re-elected and that's why they're also pushing Bernie. They know that Bernie will lose in a landslide.
The CCCP is utterly useless which is why I subscribe to the UK Guardian and The Economist because they actually report the news which is something the Screw York Times hasn't done for years.
Why do I refer to it as the Screw York Times? Answer--they put Judith Miller's lies on the front page inciting us to go to war...a war that killed my son...