Matt Taibbi's essay, "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD"

YellowSnow said:

RaceBannon said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

RaceBannon said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

YellowSnow said:

I read it yesterday. I've also listened to his pod with Sam Harris. He's definitely not team #MAGA.

While I will continue to disagree with many here on "attempted coups" , I would agree that many in the media got way out ahead of evidence being collected and have a shit ton of egg on the face.

I think it's more a symptom of profit-driven media than of any political agenda, although obviously there is some of that. He's talked about it in other places. The New Yorker infamously wouldn't even allow sales people on their editorial floor. Now tv news networks brag about being the most watched.

You would

If it was profit driven CNN and MSNBC would be like Fox who kicks their ass

They were anti Trump all the time because of their political views. They hired hacks like Brennan and the rest to echo that view day and night

They deserve all the shame and mockery they get. From wherever it comes

If you don't think profit-driven news is a major problem and was a major factor in the way this was covered, you truly can't be saved.

Not that you care because you have zero credibility or self-awareness, but there's some irony in you denying this after upvoting the op, which is a chapter from a book intended to be a follow-up to Manufacturing Consent

Can you put together a coherent post for once?

MSNBC and CNN put bias ahead of profit. The ratings bear that out.

I am well aware of manufacturing consent for wars or calling the President a traitor. News is cheap so it turns a profit regardless.

You can't deny what I wrote so you respond with the usual gibberish

I think Fox is biased just as much to the right and CNN/MSNBC are to the left. But the in the demographic that watches cable news, there's just way more right of center folks, hence way higher viewership for Fox. Same is true for talk radio.

MariotaTheGawd said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

RaceBannon said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

YellowSnow said:

I read it yesterday. I've also listened to his pod with Sam Harris. He's definitely not team #MAGA.

While I will continue to disagree with many here on "attempted coups" , I would agree that many in the media got way out ahead of evidence being collected and have a shit ton of egg on the face.

I think it's more a symptom of profit-driven media than of any political agenda, although obviously there is some of that. He's talked about it in other places. The New Yorker infamously wouldn't even allow sales people on their editorial floor. Now tv news networks brag about being the most watched.

You would

If it was profit driven CNN and MSNBC would be like Fox who kicks their ass

They were anti Trump all the time because of their political views. They hired hacks like Brennan and the rest to echo that view day and night

They deserve all the shame and mockery they get. From wherever it comes

If you don't think profit-driven news is a major problem and was a major factor in the way this was covered, you truly can't be saved.

Not that you care because you have zero credibility or self-awareness, but there's some irony in you denying this after upvoting the op, which is a piece from a book intended to be a follow-up to Manufacturing Consent

Are you one advocating for state-funded media?

nice gotcha attempt

Gotcha attempt? Hardly. There is a progressive argument for state-funded journalism. Repeated mention of profit-driven media as a problem brought the question to mind.

Alright then. Of course news outlets need to pay their bills. But there was a longstanding understanding understanding between media companies and the public that in exchange for use of the public airwaves, they actually had to do some good. Taibbi talks about this quite a bit. Now that idea almost seems like a joke.

Advertising introduces a particular sort of bias, so outlets like Democracy Now and The Nation survive on donations and subscriptions. They operate at a much smaller scale, obviously.

I think NPR does a pretty good job, but people like Chomsky have said that NPR is among the most rigid in limiting discussion into "acceptable discourse" and pretending like other ideas don't exist. I'm not really sure what to make of that because I just listen to NPR in the car and don't study it.