700

Will Bunch expresses what I've been thinking since Trump was elected. American democracy is under attack from within. The fascists who yearn for an authoritarian government in the media are promoting it, and the media who supposedly don't support it fail to recognize it. They are busy trying to follow the political playbook of the 20th century.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 141 points 10 months ago

Spare me the outrage from the press, when the press is the entity that helped create this mess.

All this could have been avoided some 6 years ago if these clowns in the press did their goddamn jobs. Trump had a history of corruption going back decades. Between sexual assault cases, crooked business dealings,connections to the Russians as well as connections to the mafia, and everything in between. Rarely any of that came to light or was taken as seriously as it should have been. It was one free pass after another. They gave him endless air time because they loved those sweet, sweet ad-dollars. They considered him a joke candidate and never dove deep into his past finances or connections.

...And then it happened. He was actually elected. And that's when it became serious.

Fuck every last one of these journalists who just sat back, let him slide, and just let it happened. Now they have the gall to talk about authoritarian-this, and fascism-that.

[-] wahming@monyet.cc 64 points 10 months ago

The press isn't monolithic. This is one journalist stating their opinion and analysis of what the rest of the industry needs to focus on.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 35 points 10 months ago

Came here to say this. There is some excellent, probing journalism out there. The problem is, it's not very profitable

[-] downpunxx@kbin.social 14 points 10 months ago

and in there lies the rub, everybody's gotta fill their own ricebowl

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

Yep. They did next to nothing to really vet him in any way. And so many had a vendetta against the Clintons that they just could not help but try to get their digs in on Hillary and Bill as much as possible, too.

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Yup. Republicans had been building a case against Hillary for some 2 decades. So much so, in fact, that even seasoned Democrats were falling for those attacks against her were ingrained into our pop culture.

Such a shame because she would have made a perfect president. She was a pitbull that was willing to call Republicans on their shit.

[-] astraeus@programming.dev 12 points 10 months ago

The same seasoned Democrats that stacked the primaries in her favor? The 2016 election was the first time I had a real voice in an election and it felt like it was just vacuumed away. The candidate who seemed the most appropriate and the most qualified got swept under the rug in favor of the shit-throwers. She wasn’t perfect, she was a better terrible than Trump.

In 2020 the Democrats scrambled for a viable candidate and somehow Joe Biden was the best they could give us, and it was an absolute gamble. His victory in the 2020 election was dangerously overstated and the danger of a repeat of 2016 in 2024 was ignored.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 71 points 10 months ago

The issue is there is a belief that the problems we are facing are because we can't accept each other's opinions and we all need to buckle down and compromise with one another.

Which is deliciously naive in a world where Nazism has gone from "So universally reviled that they are a punchline at best" to "Just an opinion from a guy asking questions."

Do not serve Bar Nazis

[-] whofearsthenight@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago

I think there is a large amount of this that's the result of social media. When I was a kid, there were still flat-earthers and other people who believe extremely stupid things. The thing was, however, that if you said that out loud, all of the people around you would with varying degrees of politeness tell you you're a fucking idiot and you'd usually change your mind quickly. In today's environment, not only can you go online and not get called a fucking idiot for your dumb opinions, you can find all of the other fucking idiots and form a ~~circle-jerk~~ Facebook group for bad opinions and feel validated in believing them. Oh, and even if you don't go looking for your own little community of morons, Facebook and the rest will happily help surface those morons for you.

The reality of social media is that not only do they serve bar nazis, they might as well be tinder for bar nazis.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (47 replies)
[-] matchphoenix@feddit.uk 64 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We need to hear from more experts on authoritarian movements and fewer pollsters and political strategists. We need journalists who’ll talk a lot less about who’s up or down and a lot more about the stakes — including Trump’s plans to dismantle the democratic norms that he calls “the administrative state,” to weaponize the criminal justice system, and to surrender the war against climate change — if the 45th president becomes the 47th. We need the media to see 2024 not as a traditional election, but as an effort to mobilize a mass movement that would undo democracy and splatter America with more blood like what was shed Saturday in Jacksonville. We need to understand that if the next 15 months remain the worst-covered election in U.S. history, it might also be the last.

Incredibly captivating article, but when you reach this final paragraph, you know with absolute and agonizing certainty that none of this will come to fruition. The mainstream media isn’t going to fix itself and this election will be covered, same as all the rest, as a horserace.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 13 points 10 months ago

The mainstream media are corporations first and press/media second. They will only do the things that make them more money and 99.9% of the time that's in direct opposition of what is good for any given situation.

I 110% do not expect the behavior to change. It's money we're discussing and shitty gossip trash talking/ political sports casting is what makes media money so it's what they'll keep doing. :(

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] joel_feila@lemmy.world 53 points 10 months ago

Bring back fairness doctrine and break up large media

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 24 points 10 months ago

Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast media, so it would need to be be expanded to include Cable/Satellite TV as well as somehow the Internet/streaming.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 47 points 10 months ago

I guess the 20th-century author and socialist Upton Sinclair really nailed it when he wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Such a simple statement that explains so much.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

The flip side of this is "Gell-Mann amnesia" — the opinion that the popular news reports about your professional field are full of shit, but that the reports about everyone else's fields are probably pretty much correct.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 46 points 10 months ago

To me this is an interesting bit:

but brutal fascism or flawed democracy.

The US under Trump wasn't North Korean style fascism, although it may have been headed in that direction. It was maybe fascism with strong overtones of democracy. People still got to vote, and their vote mattered, it's just that Dear Leader had his thumb on the scale. Congress members and senators still showed up to work, and the decisions they took still mattered, even if some of the Republicans were constantly violating precedents and norms. The judicial system still kept churning and mostly following the laws and precedents, even if Trump appointed a lot of unqualified partisan judges.

My guess is that many Trump voters wanted this kind of system. They didn't want a full-on North Korea sort of situation, and they were deluded enough that they thought they could keep a Trump presidency from becoming a full-on dictatorship. What they wanted was basically a "flawed democracy" where people who looked like them still got to vote and their vote mattered, but they definitely wanted their vote to matter much more than the votes of other people.

At the same time, the alternative was definitely also a flawed democracy. To get elected requires raising a ton of money, which ties strings to almost everyone who runs. The DNC largely picks who's allowed to run as a democrat, and one of the main qualifications to run is a person's ability to raise money. As a result, even when the democrats are in charge, common sense things that are supported by a majority of the population don't pass when they're opposed by any special interest with money.

It's easy to understand why there was initially so much overlap between supporters of Bernie Sanders and supporters of Trump. People were tired of the oligarchy-controlled pseudo-democracy, and they wanted radical changes.

The advertising duopoly of Facebook and Google has weakened journalism at a time when we desperately needed good journalism. What's left is basic horse-race and scandal-focused coverage for politics, and click bait for the rest. There are still some journalists out there doing good work, like the folks at Pro Publica. But, that kind of journalism is difficult and expensive.

I'm scared that the window for journalism being able to rescue the US might have passed. If Trump wins again, you know that the freedom of the press is going to take a serious hit. On the other hand, if the democrats win big they're going to be completely tied to the people who fund their campaigns. And the corporate-owned media isn't going to be doing stories on how the corporate-owned politicians are handing even more power to corporations.

[-] yata@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago

People still got to vote, and their vote mattered

Both questionable statements, considering massive systematic voter suppression that has been going on for decades, and also on account of the US political system, not least first-past-the-post and the electoral college, your vote may easily end up not mattering at all (as compared to countries with proportional representation).

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago

Sure. But it's not like they announce the election results before the election. Not everyone's votes count, and there's a lot of bullshit, but the results are still fundamentally influenced by the voting. That's "flawed democracy" vs. "pretend democracy".

The difference is that occasionally you can get upsets like the Roy Moore vs. Doug Jones election. Even with all the knobs and levers twisted to give Moore every advantage possible, the allegations that Moore had been having sex with numerous underage girls was enough to derail his run. In a properly functioning system it shouldn't have even been close. But, in the end, it was very close.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] whofearsthenight@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago

People still got to vote, and their vote mattered, it’s just that Dear Leader had his thumb on the scale.

This is only because an insurrection and attempted coup failed.

The advertising duopoly of Facebook and Google has weakened journalism at a time when we desperately needed good journalism.

Though they didn't help, honestly the faux both-sides "journalism" is taking its own L's, mostly. I canceled my sub to the Times quite a while back because of this type of thing, and I find it rare to see actual journalism quite a lot of the time. Headlines like "deadlock in congress due to continued failure to reach consensus on tax bill." Actual reality: Republicans want to cut taxes for the wealthy and provide loopholes for yacht owners with no plan to pay for it, Democrats want to spend approx 0.00000001% of the military budget to provide free meals for elementary students.

See also, any trans issues. "Controversy roils over trans athletes in sports." Reality: one fucking asshole in Iowa or Idaho or Mississippi or wherever want to blanket ban on trans athletes in sport because one MTF wants to play a sport. Oh, and they don't even have a kid that goes to the school/participates in the sport and the MTF player hasn't broken the top 10.

Or climate or Trump or anything with the slightest bit of controversy. Butchering the quote, but it's something along the lines of "as a journalist, if someone tells you it's raining, and another person tell's you it's not, it's not your job to report disagreement, it's your job to stick your head out the window and see if it's raining."

Applied to that first quote, if journalism was doing its job, every outlet would be reporting in no uncertain terms that the former president tried to deny your right to vote and overthrow democracy.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 10 months ago

even if some of the Republicans were constantly violating precedents and norms

I think the last decade or so of GOP actions are a clear example of why any norm or precedent that's actually vital to how things run needs to be codified into an actual rule or law with a clear punishment for violations.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago

The incentives of capitalism and the intended role of the 4th estate are not compatible. Stoking the flames of populism is simply too lucrative of a business model when compared to trying to keep the public informed. This is what allows perverse media groups to proliferate and dominate the public eye.

I don't think this is an easy problem to solve. If you're able to successfully regulate things like Fox, does that fix it, or do people just start gravitating more towards alternate media like Joe Rogan? Do you start regulating podcasts too? Twitter influencers? I feel like it'd just become a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. And given that the 4th estate's role is to check the government, how do you use the government to safeguard it without giving them too much control over it? It's a difficult balance to strike.

That said, clearly we aren't striking that balance now, so perhaps it's time to try something different.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Odd_so_Star_so_Odd@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

In short the rich folk have the country over a barrel due to FPTP-voting and a lack of campaign financing subsidies. This scheme was designed by ancient wealthy romans for the benefit of ancient wealthy romans and it's not a coincidence this form of democracy is the one America seeks to deliver upon the rest of the world.

Literally it's called "the great experiment" because it's failed before and will fail again if not allowed to evolve and advance into a form with better representation and where wealth doesn't dictate everything happening.

The greatest driver of violence, crime and corruption is wealth-inequality, it's no coincidence unions and such worse are branded as communism and criminal behavior by the plutocrats running the country, unite and demand change!

[-] spider@lemmy.nz 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

it's no coincidence unions and such worse are branded as communism

Divide-and-conquer is one of the oldest games in the book; it's a shame people can't (or don't want to) recognize this for what it is.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It is, and will always be- capitalism. When everything is for profit, lies become commodities. This system can work, until there is a crisis that markets can’t absorb. Climate change cannot be commodified because it affects consumers. Fascism is capital’s answer to the crisis. It can’t be voted away. We must demand for a planned economy to transform into a sustainable society. It’s our only hope. This is where we need to be.

[-] DharkStare@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I read an article not too long ago about a guy who started a worker owned restaurant. Everyone got a really good salary and any profits would be split evenly between all the workers. The article reveals that the business hasn't actually turned a profit but it didn't matter to the employees because the business made enough to cover it's expenses and all the workers were paid really well (IIRC they were making something like $30 an hour).

The concept really blew my mind: a business didn't need to be profitable to be successful.

Capitalism really does seem to be the problem.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] thefloweracidic@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

Is anyone really surprised by this? Or am I just so deeply under my rock I can't relate to normal people anymore? :(

[-] nutbiggums@lemmy.ml 13 points 10 months ago

When you're surrounded by ignorance it becomes difficult to find the island of reason

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

there has to be a way to do journalism without a web traffic or profit incentive.

[-] na_th_an@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

About 10 years ago, the crypto community was talking about this with regard to microtransactions. The idea was that nobody really wants to pay a monthly subscription fee to news publications, but getting someone to digitally pay 1-10 cents to read an interesting article is probably doable. Unfortunately, digital currencies became what they are today instead of anything actually useful.

[-] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 9 points 10 months ago

Actually a better solution exists and is used to varying degrees of success in other countries. BBC, ABC, CBC to name a few. Are they perfect? No. Are they funded adequately? Probably not.

That said crypto once again is looking for a problem to solve and there's nothing to solve that isn't already solved. Fund the existing solution properly does nothing but help.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

that's the fucking opposite of solving this problem

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Coreidan@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

That’s because “journalism” is a joke and died a long time ago.

[-] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClatchy

owns most local news papers and prints nothing but propaganda no news of local city council or county council meetings everything is being decided behind closed doors without the people and noone is there to report otherwise

everything is awesome just look at this new eatery "insert gentrified town here" is being blessed with

[-] kool_newt@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago

IMHO, freedom of the press is a right that should apply only to people, not companies, organizations, institutions. No organization should be able to call itself news or press while seeking profit. Freedom to profit from acting as press is not/should not be a right.

Then shut down Fox News, CNN, and friends as dangerous shows peddling lies.

The pursuit of profit is simply not compatible with the pursuit of truth.

Individuals motivated to be legit press can work independently, form co-ops to share resources, or seek funding limted by law.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 10 months ago

This seemingly (though not really) simple truth is really propaganda. CNN isn't unbiased, but then, no one is. Fox News is blatantly lying. Mentioning both sides is a way of whitewashing the truth about the worse actor. Tying the complaint to corporate profits is a way of disguising the real message.

No one should take news reporting at face value. Everyone should be educated in media literacy. But there's a big difference between a motivated agenda and outright disinformation.

A side-observation that I think is truly only coincidence: user name is Kool_Newt. Newt Gingrich is one of the people I blame most for setting us on this cursed path of culture war and lunacy. It definitely existed long before him (Caning of Charles Sumner), but he lit that fuse on fire and fanned the flames.

https://uh.edu/~englin/rephandout.html

https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/gingrich-language-set-new-course/O5bgK6lY2wQ3KwEZsYTBlO/

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SwingRiver@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I disagree. Tying all press to government funding is the surest way to captured media by the ruling party. If journalists are not independent then they are not a check against power.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip 7 points 10 months ago

That's becuase journalism cant affird to give it to you straight because they can't piss you off, since they need to sell articles.

I'll tell you EXACTLY what the hell the problem is, but you aren't going to like it at all, I promise.

The problem is everyone (yes you and me included) is way too entitled and desperate to be either noticed or get ahead. Some of this is economy, some is the internet making the globe feel small, some is politics, mostly though it's our incessant greed combined with the ease of life in modern times.

When people are unhappy the government reflects that.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
700 points (97.6% liked)

politics

18073 readers
2939 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS