POLITICS Democratic Nominee 2020 Lollapalooza

I think the funniest thing about all of 2016.

Is that Clinton pushed the media to give Trump all of that attention while fighting for the republican nomination because she thought that'd be the easiest R for her to beat.

 

I disagree with you in regards to media being the same as it always has. Nobody cares about the truth. They want hits. Attention. Before twitter, internet, etc, it was much different. Blatant, intentional lies are much more prevalent.

 

It's also the merging of news and opinion. The lines are blurred. Good journalism still takes place today, but it's increasing more difficult to find and more importantly, trust it.

 

Nobody has ever cared about truth.

Reporting and media has, until about the last 20 years, been local news, radio and newspaper.

When people stopped giving a damn about what was going on just in their neighborhood, and started caring about what went on in everyone else's, local news took a backseat to national news.

And national news has a faster pulse. The topics change more rapidly. The "news" happens faster. As a result, by the time something is spotted as "wrong" it is already ancient history. This wasn't true of local news. And still isn't. There just isn't a drive for local news anymore.

But this isn't new or different. This is how it has always been.

You're just now being forced to look nationally all the time.

 

He may have been the easiest for her to beat. We don't know.

 

I will agree, somewhat, it changed in the 90s with CNN and Fox News. CNN started it with 24 hour news, needing to fill time with stories of interest to people. Fox News created this idea of entertainment news pandering towards a specific political group.

The worst part, to me, isn't necessarily the bias, it's the noise and silly attention grabbing nonsense over being informed. CNN, I felt, was quite good in the 90s and had a large number of investigative reports and reporters digging for quality stories around the country and world. I learned about Osama bin Laden because of an excellent one of these report by Christiane Amanpour in the late 90s. They don't do this stuff anymore (Which is why I watch news stations like the BBC or Vice News, if I watch tv news). It's mostly just regurgitating the same news stories again and again throughout the day, topped off by a series of talk show hosts who need to stir outrage nightly to get viewers.

 

CNN resembles Foxnews more and more. A whole lot of opinion, a whole lot of repetition of topic.

 

He should have been, but he had a solid core of followers, she did little to stem the two decades worth of hostility and Clinton ran a campaign on "I'm not him" while arrogantly ignoring some key swing states. Trump was still such a trainwreck she nearly won. So, I agree, he may have been the easiest one for her to defeat among the candidates.

 

CNN, Fox and MSNBCs "news" platforms are now inundated with political pundits - the very antithesis of news and truth. It is mostly about silliness and attention today.

I don't want to go on a tangent, but is there a profession with less benefit to humanity than political punditry? Talk about a net negative.

 

In short, she played herself in many ways.

 

I remember Rush from the 90s, who laughs and laughs at this idea that political punditry is new and different.

They just put 'em on TV instead of radio. Whoa.

 

Political science students and analysts will marvel at how she sabotaged herself in this race for decades to come.

 

Not claiming it's new, only that it has played a big part in destroying network news. You want to destroy truth and trust? Find a political pundit.

 

The move to TV on a national level is the only thing that has changed.

It'd be like this:

The American people say baseball is boring to watch!

And then everyone here be like:

"The game musta changed!"

No. They put it on TV.

 

I get what you're saying. Do you not believe the migration to television/digital outlets has had a significantly larger impact than when it was isolated to radio and print?

 

there was one Rush, float. Now there are many more like him and many more the opposite of him on nightly in front of the world. Millions more people getting one sided shit daily. Its a mess and very different than it used to be, whether due to just being on tv or whatever the reason. More and more people daily base their opinions off daily bullshit news, whatever the medium, and become puppets of politics

 

No. We can just process more of it faster.

The impact is the same. In every case, we do it to ourselves.

 

There were a lot of little Rushs' locally. Still are. Swing through the AM stations evenings some time.

 

I'm not sure I agree impact is equitable, but I'm not sure how to quantify it. Agree with everything else. While not perfect at least we still have outlets like NPR, which are largely bullshit free.

 

Do you not see the irony of believing so many outlets to be shoveling bullshit, while simultaneously claiming them to be relied on? Are we so stupid we don't notice? Nah.

I'm seeing bullshit as a universal truth here, between you and ssmith. And yet, if this is so universal, how can the impact be different?

I don't see a different anything, other than people wanting to adopt a position, and then seek justification (of which they can find by looking hard enough), rather than looking, and then adopting a position.