The Media Industry

horninchicago said:
I have said that as well, but the others hang on his words still as if he is his father.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt mind if he was consistent. That has always seem to me to be the minimal we should expect from our media. Treat them the same. But Wallace pulls punches with Dems (when he can get them to appear). I suspect he feels like he is constantly fighting against the negative perception from the rest of the media about Fox News. In this sense, his audience is his peers in the media, instead of viewers/voters.. This is a huge mistake by him. A deadly flaw.
 
mchammer said:
He’s free to speak but not on my nickel.
Click to expand...

I'm getting paywalled and won't subscribe to the Washington Post, so I can read the article. However, I assume it's defending Joe Maguire from getting removed from his position. (He apparently wasn't actually fired.). I can accept the argument that he shouldn't have been fired. That's debatable.

What I'm not a fan of is Schmidt's claim that this "doesn't happen in democracies." Two reasons why. First, yes it does, especially with people who are "acting" and not permanent. Presidents pack senior positions with loyalists and people who support their agenda and see the world as they do. There's a reason why Obama didn't keep Mike McConnell.

Second and more disturbing, the presumption of his comment is that the bureaucracy represents democracy more than the duly elected President of the United States. To them, government by bureaucracy, judiciary, and supranational institutions represent democracy, but government by elected officials is not. These guys honestly don't know what democracy is.
 
Last edited:
What I'm not a fan of is Schmidt's claim that this "doesn't happen in democracies."
Click to expand...

Democracy currently is a brand name or label for what political elites want (i.e. the opposite of democracy).

One of Trump's weaknesses as a leader has been his inability to identify his policy opponents in the Executive Branch and replace them with people who want the same policy as Trump. It is what political appointment is all about. This one of the risks of not have a career politician elected, they don't know all the ins and outs of how to implement their policy. Trump appoints and promotes his opponents often for lack of the insider knowledge. It cuts both ways.

Second and more disturbing, the presumption of his comment is that the bureaucracy represents democracy more than the duly elected President of the United States. To them, government by bureaucracy, judiciary, and supranational institutions represent democracy, but government by elected officials is not. These guys honestly don't know what democracy is.
Click to expand...

My first comment was more about this comment. Democracy is now propaganda used to manipulate people. There simply isn't much left in the Federal government and they have their hands in everything nowadays.

Even NGOs. They were mostly founded in the Progressive Era to promote Progressive policy. They were the intelligentsia attaching scientific and/or expert reporting to support Progressives' political action. They still fulfill the same purpose. Remember that the next time you here "reports say..." following by a recommendation for a new law, agency, or government program. The reports don't produce the recommendation they justify it.
 
Just, think about this. A news corporation, ABC, is accused of having an agenda. How does that happen? News media makes their living by simply reporting the events of the day, putting them in historical and philosophical context. But to have an agenda a list of news items they want promoted and ignored, shows that some other interest is involved.

I have mentioned the CIA influence of news media several times on hornfans. ABC having an agenda to push is the fruit of this. It makes sense too. What happens commonly with government employees? The military retire early and get jobs with defense contractors or in industries where their military experience had some overlap. The revolving door of industry and regulatory agency is a real thing we are all familiar with. It is the basis of Regulatory Capture theory.

So what does someone in the intelligence community do when they retire or look to change jobs? Their experience most aligns with news media, the gathering and disseminating of information. I have read there is a revolving door between news media and the intelligence community, (a.k.a the Deep State). It is very plausible that this is the case. It is also very plausible that the Deep State uses those personal connections to their advantage.
 
Monahorns said:
I have mentioned the CIA influence of news media several times on hornfans. ABC having an agenda to push is the fruit of this. It makes sense too. What happens commonly with government employees? The military retire early and get jobs with defense contractors or in industries where their military experience had some overlap. The revolving door of industry and regulatory agency is a real thing we are all familiar with. It is the basis of Regulatory Capture theory.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's a matter of regulatory capture, but it frequently isn't. It depends on what the retiree did while he was in the military. For example, my grandfather retired from the Navy and went to work for a defense contractor that built satellites. However, he wasn't a regulator of any kind. He was a pilot and aerospace engineer.

This happens for two reasons. First, military personnel are eligible for retirement at a very young age. My grandad was only 47. Second, defense contractors will pay them a shitload. His military pay was respectable, but the defense contractor made him wealthy.

Monahorns said:
So what does someone in the intelligence community do when they retire or look to change jobs? Their experience most aligns with news media, the gathering and disseminating of information. I have read there is a revolving door between news media and the intelligence community, (a.k.a the Deep State). It is very plausible that this is the case. It is also very plausible that the Deep State uses those personal connections to their advantage.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly, some do this, especially senior officials. However, it's worth noting that that there aren't enough respectable media jobs for most to do it. Does the intelligence community exploit the connections that it does have? No question about it.

Nevertheless, the media doesn't have an entirely positive relationship with the intelligence community. It depends on what the issue is and depends on which media we're talking about. Most mainstream media outlets are just rank partisan hacks. When the intelligence community's narrative helps Democrats, they are coming unquestioning. (See the Trump-Russia issue.) However, when the issue helps Republicans, they will still listen to the intelligence community, but they will give a platform to skeptics and take them seriously. (See the Iraq WMD issue.) If we're talking about Fox News, the roles flip.
 
I often wonder how US media retains any credibility at all
When Beto was running against Ted Cruz, the media thought he was the greatest thing since corn tortillas.
But they reversed field without a shred of self-awareness when he then pivoted to run against Elizabeth Warren
This is from Jan 2019
ERrSlwGWkAAMfBL.jpg
 
Undoubtedly, some do this, especially senior officials. However, it's worth noting that that there aren't enough respectable media jobs for most to do it. Does the intelligence community exploit the connections that it does have? No question about it.

Nevertheless, the media doesn't have an entirely positive relationship with the intelligence community. It depends on what the issue is and depends on which media we're talking about. Most mainstream media outlets are just rank partisan hacks. When the intelligence community's narrative helps Democrats, they are coming unquestioning. (See the Trump-Russia issue.) However, when the issue helps Republicans, they will still listen to the intelligence community, but they will give a platform to skeptics and take them seriously. (See the Iraq WMD issue.) If we're talking about Fox News, the roles flip.
Click to expand...

I don't have any incontrovertible proof, but I have read things about CIA agents going to work in the major broadcasting companies in significant numbers. It isn't always retirees.

I agree it isn't always positive to the intelligence community. But I have a hard time thinking of an examples where ABC, NBC, CBS have spoken against the CIA/FBI narrative since Bush. Something shifted during the Obama administration. He campaigned on bringing troops home, ending wars and such. Then when he was elected his foreign policy was very NeoCon, except for the Iran Nuclear deal. Again, no first hand knowledge but it seems like some alliances were forged in that time. Now the CIA/FBI are obviously against Trump most times, except when he bombs Syria or backs some aggressive action in the Middle East. Only then do you hear any positive news about him outside of Fox News.
 
Notice that no one from the MSM ever attempts to explain why the Russians would want Trump or any Republican POTUS to be elected. It simply defies logic.

Russia has a commodity based economy. They struggle when oil prices are low. The anti-fracking / anti-O&G faction of the Democratic party is the Kremlin's wet dream. Trump has also put pressure on Germany and other European countries to reduce their dependence on Russian energy.

Then you get into military spending and strength. This is a no-brainer. Democratic presidents have typically cut military spending and gone softer on our NATO allies in terms of their military spending commitments.

This is one of the most poorly constructed conspiracy theories in the history of American politics.
 
Another sad, lonely, unattractive white menopausal woman, bitter at her dad and the husband who left her, choosing to blame Trump for everything
Go figure

ERyxYsnWsAIEkom
 
Now THIS is a woman who is a credit to her profession.
CNN commentator attacks black Trump supporters: 'Shame on you'
"
CNN commentator Angela Rye shamed black Trump supporters Thursday, arguing that they credit the president for improvements in their community while ignoring the more substantial work of others.

"You want to give Donald Trump kudos for throwing Cheez-It bits at you and then criticize the people who have spent their careers doing things for the betterment of black people and black society," Rye said. "And I would just say at that point if you still go over to Donald Trump after that: Shame on you."

and the profession is not journalism
 
Apparently a CNN analyst lost his mind when a NFL player called Trump the first black President (when it was actually Bill Clinton). Link.
 
And apparently he thinks purely symbolic gestures like attending black events (whatever that means) are more important than the significant improvements in job and wage statistics that Trump policies have brought about.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
And apparently he thinks purely symbolic gestures like attending black events (whatever that means) are more important than the significant improvements in job and wage statistics that Trump policies have brought about.
Click to expand...

An even that is ********, because of how those things get framed. If a Democrat makes public gestures to minorities such as going to "black events" (whatever that means) or appointing minorities to prominent positions, they are "valuing diversity" and "making history." If a Republican does any of that, it's "pandering" and "tokenism."

Of course, in reality, when any politician does this sort of thing, it's pandering and tokenism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top