Political Theatre category archive
Shorter Amy Fried: Donald Trump’s “populism” was a con for the rubes.
Mike Littwin suggests that Donald Trump believes his own lies and offers the “sanctuary cities” plan (if you can dignify it as a “plan) as evidence.
On a recent episode of The Bob Cesca Show podcast I forget just which one one of the participants I also forget just who pointed out that journalists follow leads, research stories, attempt to determine the facts, and report the facts to the best of their abilities.
My two or three regular readers know that I occasionally grump about “purists” on the left.
I find David’s discussion of “purity tests” regarding the herd of declared candidates for the Democratic nomination for president to be interesting. I don’t say that I agree with him completely, but I don’t have to agree with someone completely to find his or her comments interesting.
* I think the case can be made that, in politics, “purism” differs from “purity.”
I submit that the term “purism” should apply to those of whom I have grumped: the I agree with you on 95% of the issues but I disagree with you on [insert tiny thing], therefore I’m going to vote for [insert whacko third party candidate] crowd.
Brian Klass is disturbed that we seem to have become inured to tennis ball machine of Trumpling. A snippet:
The United States has reached scandal overload, a political tipping-point when the news is so overloaded with corrupt or criminal behavior that it has already become the new normal. We’ve started to tune it out. Another indictment? Another abuse of office for private gain?
Follow the link for the rest.
They get to have their own special brand of “socialism,” only don’t you dare call it that.
Robert Reich explains:
To state it another way, Dimon and other Wall Street CEOs helped trigger the 2008 financial crisis when the fraudulent loans their banks were peddling — on which they made big money — finally went bust. But instead of letting the market punish the banks (which is what capitalism is supposed to do), the government bailed them out and eventually levied paltry fines that the banks treated as the cost of doing business.
If this isn’t socialism, what is it?
Yet it’s a particular form of socialism.
Follow the link to learn more about this “particular form of socialism.”
Shaun Mullen is not sanguine. A snippet:
Follow the link for his explanation.
Shorter Shaun Mullen: Whatever he may be, Julian Assange is not a member of the press corps.
At the San Francisco Chronicle, John Diaz argues that, as persons increasing turn to the internet for news, the dominance of Google and Facebook and their use of algorithms designed to keep you “engaged,”* rather than informed, is warping and distorting persons’ perception of what is and what isn’t news. He also suggests that, as persons are more and more relying on “aggregators,” the revenue for outfits that do actual reporting, as opposed the “aggregation,” is suffering. These factors, in his eyes, and distorting and diluting the discourse and, ultimately, weakening the polity.
The two tech giants not only command nearly 60 percent all digital advertising, but they also can pretty much call the shots about how and when news stories show up on their platforms, how much of the resulting revenue they will share and who will control and capitalize on the data they collect about news consumers.
The playing field is anything but level. And the result is devastating for publishers who are becoming increasingly dependent on a digital audience as print circulation continues its decline.
Listen to the Bad Voltage podcast which I mentioned yesterday for more about “engagement” and “inform-ment.”