Dec. 9 Open Thread: Liberal Bias? If Only

Filed in National, Open Thread by on December 9, 2018

I don’t make a habit of whining about media malfeasance — it’s just too common to get worked up over. But a glut of minor sins made for annoying reading this morning.

First up: Reporters had a day to read the transcript of James Comey’s closed-door testimony to a House committee, which Democrats and Comey himself called yet another rehash of The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email use. Every outlet ran a story. Most led with utterly unremarkable news — that Trump wasn’t one of the subjects of the initial Russia investigation, that Mueller wouldn’t answer questions about the ongoing investigation. Only one, the Wall Street Journal, headlined Comey’s most interesting revelation — that Comey suspected its rogue New York office was leaking information about that probe to Rudy Giuliani. (This explains Giuliani’s obsessive interest in this case — he did as much as anyone to undermine the Clinton campaign, and he can only hide that if Trump triumphs.) Ironic, isn’t it, that only a Rupert Murdoch paper dared incur the wrath of the referee-working right by highlighting that facet of this polished turd.

Next up: The Washington Post, whose “fact-checker” gave “four Pinocchios” to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a tweet comparing the Pentagon’s lack of fiscal accountability to the hand-wringing over what Medicare for All would cost. This critique points out the obvious dishonesty of equating AOC’s wonk-failure tweet with Trump’s worst lies, but my pique derives from a more basic flaw here: How the fuck do you call it a “fact check” when every column concludes with the writer’s opinion of where it falls on his personal dishonesty scale? That nobody at the newspaper appears to care about or even notice this contradiction says all you need to know about how often critical thinking invades a newsroom.

Andrew O’Hehir surveys the early Democratic presidential landscape and worries because Biden and Sanders currently poll 1-2. Two white guys born before the end of World War II project exactly the wrong image for a party of women, minorities and young people.

John Kelly has been canned, gone by the end of the month according to Trump, who has never lied about anything like this so go ahead and book it.

Why is Michael Cohen going to jailgoing to jail while Michael Flynn is not? Because Cohen clammed up rather than spill the beans on all he knows about the Trump Organization. Apparently when you’re in cahoots with Russia — essentially a criminal enterprise armed with nukes and teams of assassins — prison seems like a good alternative.

About the Author ()

Who wants to know?

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:

    Closer to home – the NJ’s crackerjack reporter, Scott Goss, gave Scott Walker gallons of ink.

  2. RE Vanella says:

    I’m glad you brought it up first.

    Continuing to heap media coverage on this sicko just for clicks is borderline unethical. I like how he pointed out that while you may think this is a joke he got x number of Republican votes!

    It’s dumb. Scott Goss is garbage.

  3. Dave says:

    “a party of women, minorities and young people.”

    Finally, the big tent narrative has been put to rest. I’m sure it will be resurrected in lip service sometime before the election. But I’m equally sure no one will buy it.

    There are still 42 M older, white, males, most of whom vote. Seems silly to me to write off that large of a voting block. I won’t vote for Trump, but I’m not automatic lock for his opponent.

    • jason330 says:

      Thanks. Deep stuff.

      BTW, 2016 called. They want their asinine rationalizations back.

      • RE Vanella says:

        Name an opponent who is in the group of “talked about” candidates for whom you wouldn’t vote.

        Wait for it… This is going to be good…

        • Dave says:

          I said I wasn’t an automatic lock. That doesn’t mean I have excluded anyone – yet. I will tell you who is on the lower tier though. Gillibrand, Biden, Sanders, Warren.

          Who is in the top tier? Anyone who I think can beat Trump. So at the moment – no one, because I don’t honestly don’t know who, or if anyone, can beat Trump, but I doubt it’s any of the lower tier folks.

          Trump’s base has shown significant resilience, to the extent that Trump was probably right that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still win. Those who support him are not likely to switch sides in any number, which means the Democrats have to have someone who has the broad appeal necessary to ensure they win electoral votes in right states. I’m sure the Democrats will come up with some strategy to appeal to both Democrats and Independents. I just haven’t seen it yet.

  4. Alby says:

    “Finally, the big tent narrative has been put to rest. … There are still 42 M older, white, males, most of whom vote. Seems silly to me to write off that large of a voting block.”

    Two-thirds of that voting bloc votes Republican — the largest percentage of any large bloc that still does. That leaves 16 million guys who might or might not vote for the Democrat. But since about 33% routinely do vote for the Democrat, the number of wavering white males really isn’t that large at all.

    I have no problem with looking at this pragmatically. I just wonder if you’re perhaps overestimating how many sulking white men will really vote for Trump if Gillibrand or Warren or a woman or an African-American is the nominee.

    I understand the concept of deal-breakers. I simply fail to see what any candidate could bring to the table that would be a greater deal-breaker than Trump.

    • Jason330 says:

      ” I simply fail to see what any candidate could bring to the table that would be a greater deal-breaker than Trump.”

      There is it. Get that weak 2016 shit out of here.

  5. Jason330 says:

    “Those who support (Trump) are not likely to switch sides in any number [TRUE], which means the Democrats have to have someone who has the broad appeal necessary to ensure they win electoral votes in right states [FALSE].”

    Even in those “red” states, there are voters who will vote for an authentic Dem in place of a watered down…”I’m a Republican, but the good kind of Republican” style dem.

    Take West Virginia, for example. Sanders beat Clinton IN EVERY COUNTY. Take Michigan where Sanders beat Clinton outright. Sanders would have been competitive against Trump in West Virginia, Michigan and other states. Because voters don’t follow the rules you and the DC press corps want them to follow.

    They follow the “I can forgive a lot, but I can’t forgive being lied and condescended to.” rule.

  6. RE Vanella says:

    We’re going to win when we make a political argument the resonates with people. When we focus on issues that will address their material condition.

    We will not win by worrying about whether my neighbour thinks a candidate is “viable” vis-à-vis another candidate.

    What Jason said it right. 2016 happened and you learned zero from it.

    Read the Taibbi. Think on it. Then read it again.

  7. Albert jackson says:

    Sanders beat Hillary in every election district of Sussex county.
    Moveon poll say Beto 1st and mass incarceration second = https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/beto-o-rourke-narrowly-tops-moveon-2020-presidential-straw-poll-n946501

  8. Dave says:

    “We’re going to win when we make a political argument the resonates with people. When we focus on issues that will address their material condition.”

    Yes. The only difference you and I may have is the definition of “their.” Argumentum ad populum and as stupid as Trump is, he was able manipulate the people into believing his shtick because it fit their self-interests.

    “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” was a useful slogan in 1928 because it promised something for everyone. Hoover also had the had the benefit of anti-Catholic sentiment and a strong economy. Still, that one slogan spoke to everyone (except the wealthy of course). Today, we are faced with communicating to specific identity groups, each with their own self interest. There is no single unifying message, like Trump’s idiocy “Drain the swamp.” I mean heck, who wouldn’t be for draining the swamp?

    The message that resonates with people has to resonate with most of the people. That’s the challenge. The proverbial “bit tent.” If you think that people don’t perceive the Democratic Party as narrowly focus on specific groups, you will to expand your bubble a bit.

    • jason330 says:

      Dave – I think we are closer than you think.

      “…we are faced with communicating to specific identity groups, each with their own self-interest. There is no single unifying message…”

      I’m saying that there is a unifying message and it is economic.

      Furthermore, Sanders was an effective spokesperson for it.

      “There is something profoundly wrong when we have a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of Americans work longer hours for lower wages.”

      Maybe it will not be Sanders this time, but it will be someone.

      Finally, it is not at all surprising that the Hillary Clinton campaign was at odds with the unifying message and chose to highlight the identity politics instead. Her campaign was terrible because took too many voters for granted and ignored their real concerns.

  9. RE Vanella says:

    Christ-al-fucking-mighty… pedantic Latin logic phraseology. Not reading past that.

    Barca v Spurs is kicking off.