Both the Times and WaPo are guilty of shortchanging the public about the stakes in this election. And MSM is important in establishing the type of discourse picked up by all other media. You are absolutely correct about the gratuitous addition of fpotus's name in just about every article about Harris, or Democrats. MSM has an addiction t…
Both the Times and WaPo are guilty of shortchanging the public about the stakes in this election. And MSM is important in establishing the type of discourse picked up by all other media. You are absolutely correct about the gratuitous addition of fpotus's name in just about every article about Harris, or Democrats. MSM has an addiction to injecting the convicted felon into just about any news story. It is stupifying propaganda, feeding the fpotus ego, and absolving him of any accountability for his insane racist, misogynist, xenophobic, paranoid, angry, vitriol. Does MSM really want Project 2025 to be our new constitution? Sure seems that way. Puzzles and cross words indeed.
Canvassing in 2016 I saw how The NY Times sets the terms of discourse for all the media: when they write dozens of stories about something, all the other media follow. And in 2016 they ran more front-page stories about Hillary's emails in the 6 days before the election than about ALL policy issues combined in the previous 69 (thank you for the legwork, Columbia Journalism Review). Emails was the most covered "issue." Given that, they have some gall demanding an exclusive sit-down with Harris complaining that she isn't providing enough "details" about her policies when they didn't even cover broad outlines of policy in 2016. They absolutely don't deserve it. At people's doors in inner-city Cleveland in 2016, I heard "Of COURSE I'd never vote for Trump but I just don't like Hillary." When I asked why, the answer was always "I keep hearing about her emails." They could never explain what it was about the emails that bothered them, they just know SOMETHING must be wrong to get so much coverage. No one was asking for more policy details. I would've hoped after the shameful year they would've done some soul searching (when Ivanka and Jared used private email for government business, they quickly decided it was a non-story) but apparently they haven't.
Both the Times and WaPo are guilty of shortchanging the public about the stakes in this election. And MSM is important in establishing the type of discourse picked up by all other media. You are absolutely correct about the gratuitous addition of fpotus's name in just about every article about Harris, or Democrats. MSM has an addiction to injecting the convicted felon into just about any news story. It is stupifying propaganda, feeding the fpotus ego, and absolving him of any accountability for his insane racist, misogynist, xenophobic, paranoid, angry, vitriol. Does MSM really want Project 2025 to be our new constitution? Sure seems that way. Puzzles and cross words indeed.
Canvassing in 2016 I saw how The NY Times sets the terms of discourse for all the media: when they write dozens of stories about something, all the other media follow. And in 2016 they ran more front-page stories about Hillary's emails in the 6 days before the election than about ALL policy issues combined in the previous 69 (thank you for the legwork, Columbia Journalism Review). Emails was the most covered "issue." Given that, they have some gall demanding an exclusive sit-down with Harris complaining that she isn't providing enough "details" about her policies when they didn't even cover broad outlines of policy in 2016. They absolutely don't deserve it. At people's doors in inner-city Cleveland in 2016, I heard "Of COURSE I'd never vote for Trump but I just don't like Hillary." When I asked why, the answer was always "I keep hearing about her emails." They could never explain what it was about the emails that bothered them, they just know SOMETHING must be wrong to get so much coverage. No one was asking for more policy details. I would've hoped after the shameful year they would've done some soul searching (when Ivanka and Jared used private email for government business, they quickly decided it was a non-story) but apparently they haven't.