Political Theatre category archive

David Atkins considers the difficulty media faces in presenting a “balanced” range of opinion in editorial commentary and analysis, or, to put it another way, how persons like David Brooks and Bret Stephens, who are always wrong, manage to hold down jobs.

He suggests that those who employ them a face a dilemma: whether to portray the American right-wing as it is or as they would prefer it to be. Here’s a bit:

So let’s say you’re the editor of a major magazine or newspaper, and you want to give voice to the somewhat less than half or so of the country that identifies broadly with conservative perspectives. Do you hire an alt-right figure with openly racist and sexist attitudes, who actually represents what conservatism is today, even though it will outrage your readers and provide a dangerous platform for hateful views? Do you hire partisan operatives who will parrot the talking points du jour and defend whatever outlandish pronouncements Trump makes next, at the risk of ruining your brand in much the same way CNN has done by inviting commentary from the likes of Jeffrey Lord and Kayleigh McEnany? Or do you hire a never-Trump conservative like Bret Stephens who doesn’t actually represent very many people, but who won’t unduly offend readers’ sensibilities or implicitly encourage violence against women and minorities?

He goes on to point out that a similar situation exists as regards liberal commentators, but that it is no nearly so severe.

NPR investigates the potential for fabricating “news.” A snippet (emphasis added):

David Doermann of the State University of New York at Buffalo told the House intelligence committee in June that when he worked for the Pentagon’s research agency, he worried about the creation of a whole false storyline.

“One thing that kept me up at night was the concern that someday our adversaries would be able to create entire events with minimal effort,” Doermann said. “These events might include images of scenes from different angles, video content that appears from different devices and text that is delivered through various mediums providing an overwhelming amount of evidence that an event has occurred — and this could lead to social unrest or retaliation before it gets countered.”

In our society of gullible “social” media guzzlers, the report causes me considerable disquiet.

Leonard Pitts, Jr., is skeptical of the notion that the country needs a “return to normalcy.” Here’s a bit from his article:

. . . the idea that Democrats should make it their priority to get us back to “normal” is worse than naive because it rewards and absolves the GOP for years of party-first obstructionism. “Normal” is what got us here.

Follow the link for the rest.

Via Job’s Anger (and, yes, I double-checked the quotation).

The tale of a coddled cream puff.

Via Atrios.

Shaun Mullen asks, “Is normalcy enough?”

Follow the link for his answer.

Mike discusses the fires in the Amazon rain forest. (Warning: Mike’s upset. There’s more language than usual. I don’t agree with everything Mike says, but I think his tirade is worth a fair hearing.)

Werner Herzog’s Bear explains what that is.

Please follow the link to read his post. No excerpt or summary can do it justice.

Randy Rainbow “interviews” Donald Trump. (Warning: Some language.)

Via C&L.