Thank you for rounding up this sad compendium of bigotry. I remember vividly when Steve King was sanctioned with loss of his committee assignments for one of his many white supremacist statements. That seems like a dream now.
And double thanks for continuing to shed light on The NY Times' continuing abdication of journalism to benefit Trump. Every once in a while, they actually "commit a journalism" as Jeff Tiedrich puts it, but then they negate it with this type of sanewashing. Trump is "free styling" and "improvising"? He's spewing incoherent nonsense about even more incoherent and inconsistent policies. And I'm still seething about The NY Times' weird decision about two months ago to quote a piece of speech by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, leaving in all the "ums" and pauses, something I've never done in my 40 years as a journalist interviewing tons of incoherent rock musicians, because that's just not what you do for the benefit of readers. But they have virtually never reported a Trump quote verbatim, leaving in his mid-sentence digressions, his odd word insertions, his misnomers and gaffes, and his flights of completely impenetrable nonsense. Their sanewashing constitutes journalistic malpractice.
Mike Johnson has a point. Let me revise his quote a bit:
"There’s a lot of energy in the country...and a lot of popular sentiment that the... law in America is a serious problem. That’s what animates this. it’s about those who seek to impose a different belief system that is in direct conflict with the Constitution."
Unfortunately, the news media in general has become numb to Republican bigotry, spoken loudly and enabled by Trump. What's just as bad is that many of our citizens have also become numb or oblivious to it as well. Too many members of the very minorities that Trump vilifies have kept voting for him in numbers that boggle the mind.
Mark argues that the Republican Party has become a "bastion" of white supremacist rhetoric, yet the media and political establishment treat this radicalization as a series of isolated incidents rather than a systemic trend.
Why is the right wing permitted to label Democrats as "communists" or "Hamas supporters" with little pushback by media, advocacy group, or elected officials/candidates, while the GOP's "Klan cookout" atmosphere is normalized? This double standard suggests a failure to connect the dots of a growing extremist trend. If a small group of local legislators (as we did in Iowa) could civilly call out a colleague’s segregationist ties in the past, why does the national press, advocacy groups and Democratic official/candidates now lack the "cohesive response" necessary to combat open racism?
The answer may be in the superior social media/podcasts of the radical right who provide cover and propaganda.
Aside from you and the occasional Substack, what media will post this? They can call themselves whatever they want but RW people in this country are racist as a community. They don't like to be called such but all of their deflections are obvious. And the elected GOP is a reflection of it, as is the GOP President.
Controversy, like sex, sells. As long as the media is more focused on such “issues” for ratings or a bottom line, sadly I will only expect more. Having to resort to ignoring most of it seems the only solution that will gain attention. And, Hopefully, change/conversion will ensue.
Al Jazeera is reporting on Trump’s haphazard, disorganized folly in Iran. They aren’t apologists for Trump. Unlike the Times, they report exactly how unprepared and confused Trump, Hegseth, Rubio and maybe two other inexperienced people are wrt their attack on Iran.
(I originally pasted the wrong link. The one below is the correct link. Sorry for the mixup.)
I recently read Timothy Egan's "A Fever in the Heartland: The Ku Klux Klan's Plot to Take Over America, and the Woman Who Stopped Them" and although it was from 100 years ago, it felt eerily like so much of what is transpiring today.
It's the same cynical, sinister playbook: the normalization of nastiness, the misappropriation and misapplication of the scriptures, the demonization and scapegoating of people based on their skin color or nation of origin or some other irrelevant characteristic, the attraction to someone with charisma, but who has no character.
What galls me is how many people who know better are not standing up to all of this.
What encourages me is how many people have been resisting--and how that number ought to grow as the consequences of the Trump administration's repeated overreach and missteps, domestically and globally, negatively affect more people.
Do we really need a litany of how ignorant many MOC are? They just follow their "leader" - he says the worst possible thing every time he opens his potty mouth, tweets on TS. Who's surprised that 2/3 of congress bellows the same garbage??
Thank you for rounding up this sad compendium of bigotry. I remember vividly when Steve King was sanctioned with loss of his committee assignments for one of his many white supremacist statements. That seems like a dream now.
And double thanks for continuing to shed light on The NY Times' continuing abdication of journalism to benefit Trump. Every once in a while, they actually "commit a journalism" as Jeff Tiedrich puts it, but then they negate it with this type of sanewashing. Trump is "free styling" and "improvising"? He's spewing incoherent nonsense about even more incoherent and inconsistent policies. And I'm still seething about The NY Times' weird decision about two months ago to quote a piece of speech by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, leaving in all the "ums" and pauses, something I've never done in my 40 years as a journalist interviewing tons of incoherent rock musicians, because that's just not what you do for the benefit of readers. But they have virtually never reported a Trump quote verbatim, leaving in his mid-sentence digressions, his odd word insertions, his misnomers and gaffes, and his flights of completely impenetrable nonsense. Their sanewashing constitutes journalistic malpractice.
Thank you, Mr. Jacob, for seeing and writing with such clarity. Your perspective is so valuable.
Mike Johnson has a point. Let me revise his quote a bit:
"There’s a lot of energy in the country...and a lot of popular sentiment that the... law in America is a serious problem. That’s what animates this. it’s about those who seek to impose a different belief system that is in direct conflict with the Constitution."
YUP!
"Improvisational approach" is the kind of sanewashing that has led us to this abyss.
Unfortunately, the news media in general has become numb to Republican bigotry, spoken loudly and enabled by Trump. What's just as bad is that many of our citizens have also become numb or oblivious to it as well. Too many members of the very minorities that Trump vilifies have kept voting for him in numbers that boggle the mind.
Mark argues that the Republican Party has become a "bastion" of white supremacist rhetoric, yet the media and political establishment treat this radicalization as a series of isolated incidents rather than a systemic trend.
Why is the right wing permitted to label Democrats as "communists" or "Hamas supporters" with little pushback by media, advocacy group, or elected officials/candidates, while the GOP's "Klan cookout" atmosphere is normalized? This double standard suggests a failure to connect the dots of a growing extremist trend. If a small group of local legislators (as we did in Iowa) could civilly call out a colleague’s segregationist ties in the past, why does the national press, advocacy groups and Democratic official/candidates now lack the "cohesive response" necessary to combat open racism?
The answer may be in the superior social media/podcasts of the radical right who provide cover and propaganda.
Aside from you and the occasional Substack, what media will post this? They can call themselves whatever they want but RW people in this country are racist as a community. They don't like to be called such but all of their deflections are obvious. And the elected GOP is a reflection of it, as is the GOP President.
Thanks, Mark, for your insights.
Controversy, like sex, sells. As long as the media is more focused on such “issues” for ratings or a bottom line, sadly I will only expect more. Having to resort to ignoring most of it seems the only solution that will gain attention. And, Hopefully, change/conversion will ensue.
Didn't we already know this?
Al Jazeera is reporting on Trump’s haphazard, disorganized folly in Iran. They aren’t apologists for Trump. Unlike the Times, they report exactly how unprepared and confused Trump, Hegseth, Rubio and maybe two other inexperienced people are wrt their attack on Iran.
(I originally pasted the wrong link. The one below is the correct link. Sorry for the mixup.)
https://youtu.be/apnR1y-lloE?si=rCHEtOxD3FvvmJrD
I recently read Timothy Egan's "A Fever in the Heartland: The Ku Klux Klan's Plot to Take Over America, and the Woman Who Stopped Them" and although it was from 100 years ago, it felt eerily like so much of what is transpiring today.
It's the same cynical, sinister playbook: the normalization of nastiness, the misappropriation and misapplication of the scriptures, the demonization and scapegoating of people based on their skin color or nation of origin or some other irrelevant characteristic, the attraction to someone with charisma, but who has no character.
What galls me is how many people who know better are not standing up to all of this.
What encourages me is how many people have been resisting--and how that number ought to grow as the consequences of the Trump administration's repeated overreach and missteps, domestically and globally, negatively affect more people.
Do we really need a litany of how ignorant many MOC are? They just follow their "leader" - he says the worst possible thing every time he opens his potty mouth, tweets on TS. Who's surprised that 2/3 of congress bellows the same garbage??