What's in it for the MSM? They're not getting on any of these BODs. They still make the same money whether a RAT or CON is in the WH. Why is the MSM so hell bent on globalism and being PRAVDA for the RATS?
"Then in this mix of serious financial and military elites came the journalists from the mainstream media, the major metropolitan dailies (New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, etc.) and the top TV Networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS). The outliers were Fox News (now coming around to liberal thinking) and various individual talk radio hosts (Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Levin). The bulk of the action is on the Democrat party side of the ledger and they all promote a party that now serves the interests of big money, paying lip service to the “workers” and unions."
What's in it for the MSM? They're not getting on any of these BODs. They still make the same money whether a RAT or CON is in the WH. Why is the MSM so hell bent on globalism and being PRAVDA for the RATS?
"Then in this mix of serious financial and military elites came the journalists from the mainstream media, the major metropolitan dailies (New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, etc.) and the top TV Networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS). The outliers were Fox News (now coming around to liberal thinking) and various individual talk radio hosts (Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Levin). The bulk of the action is on the Democrat party side of the ledger and they all promote a party that now serves the interests of big money, paying lip service to the “workers” and unions."
You're thinking in terms that are way too conspiratorial when the answer is much simpler.
Most folks who work for the big media outlets are cut from the same cloth - urban, highly educated, with upper middle class backgrounds. Believe it or not, their personal politics tend to actually favor globalization, not because they personally have anything to gain, but because they genuinely believe it's good policy.
And that's where so much of the disconnect comes from. We're now multiple generations in to a "media class" that has increasingly grown up in elite urban circles, and they've become more and more unfamiliar with people who live in rural areas who don't have that same shared experience, and who personally suffered from that shifting global economy. It's not nefarious and it's not a money grab, they just simply don't know who these people in "other America" are, anymore than they know someone in rural India.
Trump will get prosecuted for a myriad of things ... he'll fly over to Russia and Putin will grant him citizenship and Trump will live his last days posting on Twitter from a luxury condo in Moscow ... book it.
Trump will get prosecuted for a myriad of things ... he'll fly over to Russia and Putin will grant him citizenship and Trump will live his last days posting on Twitter from a luxury condo in Moscow ... book it.
Trump's not going to get prosecuted for anything.
There's 70 million reasons why and even Crazy Joe knows it's not in his best interest to stoke their angst any time soon.
putin is ahead of the curve ... he already backed trump years ago and everyone found out after the fact ... he's already moved on, he got what he wanted. Why was Trump deferring to Putin every chance he got?
putin ain't KGB for nothin' ... c'mon you guys! He was trained for this ... and he lives for this and he made it all the way to top of Russian government, Russian history.
He's playing Chess and you guys are still playing checkers.
What's in it for the MSM? They're not getting on any of these BODs. They still make the same money whether a RAT or CON is in the WH. Why is the MSM so hell bent on globalism and being PRAVDA for the RATS?
"Then in this mix of serious financial and military elites came the journalists from the mainstream media, the major metropolitan dailies (New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, etc.) and the top TV Networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS). The outliers were Fox News (now coming around to liberal thinking) and various individual talk radio hosts (Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Levin). The bulk of the action is on the Democrat party side of the ledger and they all promote a party that now serves the interests of big money, paying lip service to the “workers” and unions."
You're thinking in terms that are way too conspiratorial when the answer is much simpler.
Most folks who work for the big media outlets are cut from the same cloth - urban, highly educated, with upper middle class backgrounds. Believe it or not, their personal politics tend to actually favor globalization, not because they personally have anything to gain, but because they genuinely believe it's good policy.
And that's where so much of the disconnect comes from. We're now multiple generations in to a "media class" that has increasingly grown up in elite urban circles, and they've become more and more unfamiliar with people who live in rural areas who don't have that same shared experience, and who personally suffered from that shifting global economy. It's not nefarious and it's not a money grab, they just simply don't know who these people in "other America" are, anymore than they know someone in rural India.
This is actually a pretty damn good take. You could quibble with one or two items; but overall seems like the right answer. A lot of us don't believe - call in skepticism - that people huddle up and organize and conspire all that often. The best explanation is usually the one right in front of you. Demographics are demographics for a reason.
What's in it for the MSM? They're not getting on any of these BODs. They still make the same money whether a RAT or CON is in the WH. Why is the MSM so hell bent on globalism and being PRAVDA for the RATS?
"Then in this mix of serious financial and military elites came the journalists from the mainstream media, the major metropolitan dailies (New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, etc.) and the top TV Networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS). The outliers were Fox News (now coming around to liberal thinking) and various individual talk radio hosts (Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Levin). The bulk of the action is on the Democrat party side of the ledger and they all promote a party that now serves the interests of big money, paying lip service to the “workers” and unions."
You're thinking in terms that are way too conspiratorial when the answer is much simpler.
Most folks who work for the big media outlets are cut from the same cloth - urban, highly educated, with upper middle class backgrounds. Believe it or not, their personal politics tend to actually favor globalization, not because they personally have anything to gain, but because they genuinely believe it's good policy.
And that's where so much of the disconnect comes from. We're now multiple generations in to a "media class" that has increasingly grown up in elite urban circles, and they've become more and more unfamiliar with people who live in rural areas who don't have that same shared experience, and who personally suffered from that shifting global economy. It's not nefarious and it's not a money grab, they just simply don't know who these people in "other America" are, anymore than they know someone in rural India.
This is actually a pretty damn good take. You could quibble with one or two items; but overall seems like the right answer. A lot of us don't believe - call in skepticism - that people huddle up and organize and conspire all that often. The best explanation is usually the one right in front of you. Demographics are demographics for a reason.
For my money it really is this demographic split that has caused polarization to exacerbate the way it has these last couple decades. As culture, media, tech, and finance all consolidate in the same handful of coastal cities, huge swaths of Americans feel ignored, disrespected, and disconnected. And that's why you start to see these dumbfuck takes of "all Trump supporters are racist" from some on the left. Because they literally don't know what these peoples' lives are like, so it's the only explanation that makes sense to them.
That's why I'm all in on #yanggang. He's lived and worked on the ground in "both" Americas. He gets it, he gets the divide, and he understands how unhealthy it is for the country.
What's in it for the MSM? They're not getting on any of these BODs. They still make the same money whether a RAT or CON is in the WH. Why is the MSM so hell bent on globalism and being PRAVDA for the RATS?
"Then in this mix of serious financial and military elites came the journalists from the mainstream media, the major metropolitan dailies (New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, etc.) and the top TV Networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS). The outliers were Fox News (now coming around to liberal thinking) and various individual talk radio hosts (Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Levin). The bulk of the action is on the Democrat party side of the ledger and they all promote a party that now serves the interests of big money, paying lip service to the “workers” and unions."
You're thinking in terms that are way too conspiratorial when the answer is much simpler.
Most folks who work for the big media outlets are cut from the same cloth - urban, highly educated, with upper middle class backgrounds. Believe it or not, their personal politics tend to actually favor globalization, not because they personally have anything to gain, but because they genuinely believe it's good policy.
And that's where so much of the disconnect comes from. We're now multiple generations in to a "media class" that has increasingly grown up in elite urban circles, and they've become more and more unfamiliar with people who live in rural areas who don't have that same shared experience, and who personally suffered from that shifting global economy. It's not nefarious and it's not a money grab, they just simply don't know who these people in "other America" are, anymore than they know someone in rural India.
This is actually a pretty damn good take. You could quibble with one or two items; but overall seems like the right answer. A lot of us don't believe - call in skepticism - that people huddle up and organize and conspire all that often. The best explanation is usually the one right in front of you. Demographics are demographics for a reason.
It is a good take, and matches what I know personally. That was also the central poont of Bernie Goldberg's book 10-15 years ago.
5-6 years ago, that JournoList thing was 'uncovered' as a means of narrative coordination. Now, I don't think they even need that. They coordinate through the Twatter hivemind.
The NY Times, Wa Po, and the three networks reported the same stories on the same day for decades before the internet was swimming around in Al Gore's loins
You don't need to gather together in a room to coordinate the message
The NY Times, Wa Po, and the three networks reported the same stories on the same day for decades before the internet was swimming around in Al Gore's loins
You don't need to gather together in a room to coordinate the message
Not the message. But coordinating the new world order takes at least a handful of people meeting on at least a couple of Zoom calls to iron out at least a few details. That's my point.
Comments
"Then in this mix of serious financial and military elites came the journalists from the mainstream media, the major metropolitan dailies (New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, etc.) and the top TV Networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS). The outliers were Fox News (now coming around to liberal thinking) and various individual talk radio hosts (Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Levin). The bulk of the action is on the Democrat party side of the ledger and they all promote a party that now serves the interests of big money, paying lip service to the “workers” and unions."
Most folks who work for the big media outlets are cut from the same cloth - urban, highly educated, with upper middle class backgrounds. Believe it or not, their personal politics tend to actually favor globalization, not because they personally have anything to gain, but because they genuinely believe it's good policy.
And that's where so much of the disconnect comes from. We're now multiple generations in to a "media class" that has increasingly grown up in elite urban circles, and they've become more and more unfamiliar with people who live in rural areas who don't have that same shared experience, and who personally suffered from that shifting global economy. It's not nefarious and it's not a money grab, they just simply don't know who these people in "other America" are, anymore than they know someone in rural India.
Trump will get prosecuted for a myriad of things ... he'll fly over to Russia and Putin will grant him citizenship and Trump will live his last days posting on Twitter from a luxury condo in Moscow ... book it.
There's 70 million reasons why and even Crazy Joe knows it's not in his best interest to stoke their angst any time soon.
putin ain't KGB for nothin' ... c'mon you guys! He was trained for this ... and he lives for this and he made it all the way to top of Russian government, Russian history.
He's playing Chess and you guys are still playing checkers.
That's why I'm all in on #yanggang. He's lived and worked on the ground in "both" Americas. He gets it, he gets the divide, and he understands how unhealthy it is for the country.
5-6 years ago, that JournoList thing was 'uncovered' as a means of narrative coordination. Now, I don't think they even need that. They coordinate through the Twatter hivemind.
You don't need to gather together in a room to coordinate the message
Mein Kampf is taken, btw.