7 Likes
Krugman is a partisan hack. A journalist that believes it’s his duty to tailor reportage to influence an election in the name of moral rectitude, even if it’s my moral rectitude, gives me the willies.
5 Likes
I have not spoken with any of them this week so far, but every single person I know – male AND female – who has openly joked in the past in support of men forcing themselves on women in the way Trump talks about, and in fact proudly told their own tales (and no, this is not stuff I hear in men’s locker rooms…it’s in board rooms and dinner parties) has been planning to vote for Trump. They’re not openly proclaiming it the way they did with Romney, Bush pater and filium, and Reagan, but behind closed doors they’ve been very clear about their choice.
It’s not “othering” if you’re talking about people so cravenly unethical and immoral that they are a clear and present danger to everyone around them.
31 Likes
He was operating on the info he had. Things change quickly, and um, things, have emerged.
1 Like
At this stage, I would say that’s about as close to a sure thing as you can get.
There are still four weeks left, a lot can happen. I suppose it’s possible there could still be an October surprise that’s devastating for Clinton, though it’s hard to imagine what that could be given that her opponents have been digging dirt on her and flinging shit at her for decades.
But I don’t see any signs of Trump doing anything but further isolate himself and his loyal base. He’s been alienating some Republicans all along, and now he’s alienated a whole bunch more. Even if some of us find it appalling that these people are only waking up now, and that it took audio/video proof that Trump hurts white women to make it happen, that they’re jumping ship is ultimately what matters. His gambit of attacking Bill Clinton seems likely to backfire, or at best shore up his support with his hardcore followers – something he doesn’t really need to do, but since when does Trump make sense?
Some conservatives believe he’s a Democratic plant to ensure a Clinton victory. As wacky conspiracy theories go, I actually find that more plausible than most.
7 Likes
Ew, I [don’t want to] see what you did there!
lol
4 Likes
Via @nemomen
12 Likes
I can’t. Canadian, so just watching from the sidelines as we tend to do (as they say, when the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold, so we take great interest in your elections). It’s the most baffling, disgusting, frightening, yet also entertaining campaign I can remember.
9 Likes
Is it fair to conflate editorials and opinion pieces as anything but tailored reportage? That’s sort of the major issue with profit driven saturation of news reporting is that it is mostly slant opinion pieces and not… well, news. This is especially true with partisan politics where both sides have immensely popular mouth pieces that are a part of the “mainstream media.”
3 Likes
Nate Silver is quick to point out that it takes several days for their models to catch up to recent events, so those numbers really reflect voter attitudes from BEFORE the “pussy grab” tape or Sunday’s debate.
4 Likes
Krugman isn’t talking about editorial or opinion. He is calling for reporters to compromise objectivity for a very specific reason. But I agree with the rest of your post. Modern journalism is terrible.
Edit: If you haven’t yet, read the G. Greenwald piece I linked.
1 Like
Yeah, stop hitting yourself. (which is to say, you’re not the one othering when you’ve been othered)
10 Likes
Now he’s perpetuating hurtful stereotypes! What’s next, blonde jokes?
11 Likes
Point taken.
5 Likes
What I’m saying is that opinion pieces since the dawn of media have been like this, but it’s the current finance and bipartisan consumption that drives opinion piece writers to drive their message that is tailored to their audience.
Krugman will always say there is a moral right and wrong in an election, just like the pundits behind Trump say the exact opposite. The actual rare pundit statement is the one that crosses party lines, and when they do they tend to lose their job because their audience flees.
EDIT: I can write the exact mirror to Greenwald’s piece just by choosing the other side of the media coin.
1 Like
I can’t wait for the next four weeks to be over, but not feeling terribly optimistic about the next four years.
7 Likes
There’s been some polling results since then with some post-Trump Tape polls showing a dip, others not. So far things haven’t changed dramatically, though it’s still too early to really gauge the effect:
It’s not only about Krugman’s editorial. It’s about the big picture, the vast support his point of view drew from professional establishment journalists (which is what Greenwald aimed to show in the piece). It is certainly not about editorial (ok, in a way it is, since even ‘reporting’ is driven and guided by the reporters biases, consciously or otherwise, but it’s not about capital-E editorial being biased). I’ll give you the last word, because I don’t want to derail. I only posted Greenwald’s piece because it shows Krugman’s work may be manipulative and/or compromised.
1 Like
Krugman is certainly very partisan. The title of Greenwald’s piece is “The Unrelenting Pundit-Led Effort to Delegitimize All Negative Reporting About Hillary Clinton.” Krugman’s not a journalist, though, he’s a pundit. This is an important distinction for me. Griping about pundits shaping a partisan message is like complaining about the sky being blue.
20 Likes
The stalwart conservatives in my family have seized on this as The One Truth, b/c if Obama wasn’t the root cause of all things evil, then HRC is. This feels like yet another outgrowth of trump’s grand ability to project his faults onto others–why should the GOP/conservatives look within at their own issues when they can so easily blame someone else?
8 Likes
