Consider it justice (of a sort): he who lives by the media dies by the media. I’m talking -- as if you had a scintilla of doubt -- about Donald Trump.
Jefferson's "well informed citizenry" has devolved into the willfully ignorant circus.
With two decades of successfully scapegoating the Green Party to cover up the Democrats' poor choice of candidates, the Democratic Party is NOT going to ever consider the "mainstream news the new third party".
Indeed. Not even "progressive" mainstream media people like funnyman Jon Oliver is exempt of making fun of the Green Party over the Democratic Party
Lets hope that what Ghandi said holds true, that being made fun of is just another step towards winning.
After distracting us from the issues by mocking Gary Johnson's yellow tie and jeans, Oliver refries the same worn out rhetoric against Stein that he, Clinton, and most of the MSM serially used against Sanders during the primaries...why would we spend $18 trillion on a decade of single payer and student debt relief when we need twice that much to bail out Wall Street ?
Its called posturing to make sure that you have a scapegoat at hand when you don't like the election results.
as opposed to the dominant liberal cesspit of "indy" media that is running nothing but Trump 24/7? Honestly, as someone who has been in and out of this community for quite a few years, this might be CDs finest hour. They haven't steered back into Democrats-at-All-Costs-Autopilot like everyone else.
I think if there's a year to donate to them, it is this one. They have to be paying a serious price for not coddling partisan Democrats like they used to.
They might not be completely supporting Democrats but CD isn't helping its case with its plethora of Trump articles and lack of representation for Jill Stein. By being silent about criticizing what many see here as the greater evil and refusing to cover the greater good CD is unfortunately implicating itself with Clinton supporters. Silence is also a statement. Perhaps that poll they did a couple months back has something to do with all this.
CD is a news website. Clinton and Trump will together amass probably about 95% of the votes. They are more important, they are more newsworthy, they are more relevant. CD is not a Green party affiliate and it is not their job to promote the Green party. They are a news website, and they report the news.
The Green party is not major news, and yet you will find that they are always represented in CD's 'trending now' bar on the top of every page.
Trump is the candidate of choice for the white nationalist/Daily Stormer crowd. He's the favorite of Internet Nazis. He's Pepe the Frog approved. I think they know just what kind of candidate they like, and they hate Clinton.
these judgments are always relative. if you were around here in previous cycles, it was very much the same as everywhere else. Obama in 2008, and Gore in 2000, for example.
I'm a red, not a liberal, so all of these sites will fall short of my preferences. But for a liberal site, they've improved quite a bit, and I think it's only fair to acknowledge that if we're going to insist on critiquing them, too.
I'm not arguing your own critique, by the way, in saying this. I think you're correct in more absolute terms. But it's not a small deal to see a traditionally Democratic partisan site resist the usual ritual of getting swept away by party propaganda. It's really, really unusual.
I don't believe so, care to share?
"...the man whose greatest skill may be sensing the proximity of a camera and attracting it..." That has been Bill Clinton's claim to fame for years. When I see his face, I always think of those "Where's Waldo" puzzles my daughter used to do.
CD is a current events/opinion site.
Both are reprehensible, and both have been heavily marketed by the best advertising people available. Whichever one wins the election, masses of us will lose. The only thing left to debate is which one would be likely to launch our final war the fastest. It's really just a rhetorical question, though, because we will lose either way (the US has already been drained out militarily and economically by the longest war in US history, and the American people really can't stand each other today).
Unfortunately, everything's out of our hands
"News" means "current events" and the opinions published here are about things going on in current events.
Ooh, but this is off a bit, though Tom does get some things right.
Yes, Trump is a media figure, of course of course, and has made a career of tweaking media as part of his general con and grifter routine--with a little soft-shoe, hot-chachacha. And there is certainly nothing wrong with hitting Trump or the commercial media about any and all of this. Hallelujah.
Still, Tom needs the media to deep-six Hillary Clinton to validate his title and argument here.
So far, mostly owning the media does not appear to have hurt Hillary Clinton. Moreover, while the media's involvement with Donald Trump in 2016 is certainly not admirable, it is leagues less abominable than its involvement with Clinton, the standing president, and the DNC. Trump gave it pablum that it could use to bait consumers whose attentions it could sell to advertising networks--the usual path of the dollar and of managerial interest in these media, the sort of shlock that we have dismissed and become used to dismissing and are annoyed to have to bother with. However, all at the same time, the media was actually conferring with the Clinton camp to directly supervise its copy during the nomination process and presumably during the general campaign as well--particularly considering the childish "The Russians are coming" sort of nonsense about revelations of felony offences from the Clinton camp emails.
These things came out in the emails. They have not been denied, and much has been acknowledged either directly or tacitly. The main Clinton camp and media response is "The Russians are coming." Oh, right, and how would that be relevant, were it even true? Should we be resentful to find that Mister Putin had become such a fan of democratic process as to bring out discrepancies in an American election? Were the Russians just out to jostle Hillary Clinton because of, say, the threat of nuclear war, and had an opportunity to do so because of the extensive violations of democratic process, should we care about the motive?
I would say not. It seems to me closely parallel to the less than sterling motivations that prompted "Deep Throat" to turn Nixon over to reporters, bit by bit. The point is not whether Guccifer or Russia or whoever reveals such information is a hero, but the information itself.
And still, bravo for Guccifer, whoever or whatever he or she or it is.
Come on. We have had a major landmark open and public failure of commercial media here, probably its most drastic and obvious once-off failure since the NYT's deliberately fraudulent selling of the Iraq War.
And here's to CD in the middle of this, and to Tom Englehardt, by the way, in these days of the arrest not only of Amy Goodman but of other journalists operating within the United States. Here's to our honest errors! I do not expect to agree with people all the time, but I am glad to have the opportunity to say so and the article to which to respond. I hope we are all standing and operating when we find out that this Clinton person was not the least-worster that some of you-all appear to have taken her to be.
We absolutely want to give the executive the power to bypass the Federal Reserve. It's clear that a halfwit Brit doesn't understand our systems. Furthermore, Stein is not an anti-vaccer...who has John by the balls?
He is an entertainer. And we all know that the anointed Queen is exempt from being made fun of this cycle. Oliver too has corporate masters.
Hey, instead of bragging about how clever you are for masking your IP, maybe don't use a website that is provided to you for free while advocating that others not contribute to funding that website.
If it were my website I would ban you, too.