Toledo Talk

"alt-right" neo nazi posters popping up in the area

I figured with Toledo's troubled past with Neo Nazi groups that this would be of interest. I hate that I even feel the need to post about this...

Someone is sticking up vague white power posters around Toledo and also Bowling green. BGSU earlier today sent out a press release about it: http://www.bgsu.edu/statement-3-7-17

The posters can be found on the Alt group's website here: https://www.identityevropa.com/new-products/

It looks like they are being posted all around Toledo, based on posts I've been reading on Facebook throughout the day. It's quite possibly the work of only a handful of people.

created by upso on Mar 07, 2017 at 06:29:08 pm     Politics     Comments: 52

source      versions


Comments ... #

People put up flyers and posters pretty much everywhere, especially on/around college campuses. So what? If we don't freak out about "Eat the Rich!" or "Class War!" stickers we have no right to freak out about vague posters from a group with silly ideas about race.

Let's make a huge deal about it, issue press releases and get all worked up. I'm sure that's not exactly what they were going for...

posted by Columbusguy on Mar 07, 2017 at 06:57:32 pm     #   5 people liked this

Anybody else think that their green triangular logo looks really similar to ProMedica's logo?

I also liked BGSU's press release, saying that the college does not tolerate intolerance... so what you're saying is, you're intolerant of intolerance?

posted by dell_diva on Mar 07, 2017 at 07:14:57 pm     #  

Columbusguy posted at 05:57:32 PM on Mar 07, 2017:

People put up flyers and posters pretty much everywhere, especially on/around college campuses. So what? If we don't freak out about "Eat the Rich!" or "Class War!" stickers we have no right to freak out about vague posters from a group with silly ideas about race.

Let's make a huge deal about it, issue press releases and get all worked up. I'm sure that's not exactly what they were going for...

That's a false equivalency. Eat the rich is a metaphor. There is an actual alt-right movement that is affecting a gamut of things from policy encouraging anglicizing the US to actual violence. Disregard for nuance and message is reckless l. "Ignore it " and it will go away certainly lessens the stress and burden though. This is an excellent teaching opportunity, though.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 07, 2017 at 08:10:10 pm     #   6 people liked this

ahmahler posted at 07:10:10 PM on Mar 07, 2017:
Columbusguy posted at 05:57:32 PM on Mar 07, 2017:

People put up flyers and posters pretty much everywhere, especially on/around college campuses. So what? If we don't freak out about "Eat the Rich!" or "Class War!" stickers we have no right to freak out about vague posters from a group with silly ideas about race.

Let's make a huge deal about it, issue press releases and get all worked up. I'm sure that's not exactly what they were going for...

That's a false equivalency. Eat the rich is a metaphor. There is an actual alt-right movement that is affecting a gamut of things from policy encouraging anglicizing the US to actual violence. Disregard for nuance and message is reckless l. "Ignore it " and it will go away certainly lessens the stress and burden though. This is an excellent teaching opportunity, though.

There is also an actual movement to vilify wealthy people (among others) and it does those things too, to a MUCH greater degree. "Class War" is not a metaphor, neither is "Die Yuppie Scum." People believe in and push for all kinds of stupid things. That you find one to be worse than another is arbitrary. It's still a couple posters and stickers we're talking about here.

Yes, there exists a small fringe movement of people pushing a racist agenda. That isn't news. There are lots of groups with lots of bad agendas. Sometimes they put up propaganda to spread their message. Yipee.

The teaching opportunity is that so many people either don't grasp the importance of open exchanges of ideas or don't understand that it includes the ideas they hate the most and find the most harmful/dangerous/whatever. And, of course, that trolling works offline just as well as it does online.

posted by Columbusguy on Mar 07, 2017 at 08:35:29 pm     #   2 people liked this

Not a big politics guy. But from the news I see it's the alt-left/liberals who are most violent. Burning down UC Berkeley, destroying Philadelphia, destroying store fronts in DC during the inauguration. Lighting fires that cost 500k to clean up at the Dakota pipeline (yeah that's great for the environment lol)

I swear, 95% of the time I see damage and destruction being caused that is big enough to make the news it's the alt left liberals causing the "uprising."

posted by Xbuckeyex on Mar 07, 2017 at 08:52:45 pm     #   5 people liked this

I can only imagine what a shipwreck Swampbubbles is right now. I haven't visited that site in several years. Definitely won't be any time soon. Yuck!

posted by Molsonator on Mar 07, 2017 at 09:23:38 pm     #  

Xbuckeyex posted at 07:52:45 PM on Mar 07, 2017:

Not a big politics guy. But from the news I see it's the alt-left/liberals who are most violent. Burning down UC Berkeley, destroying Philadelphia, destroying store fronts in DC during the inauguration. Lighting fires that cost 500k to clean up at the Dakota pipeline (yeah that's great for the environment lol)

I swear, 95% of the time I see damage and destruction being caused that is big enough to make the news it's the alt left liberals causing the "uprising."

That "alt left" is a very small group of anarchists. They have no interest in any left wing causes and are associated only by their common distaste of the right. That's a lovely little term coined to make the left feel as extreme as the right has allowed into their ranks.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 07, 2017 at 09:28:40 pm     #   5 people liked this

Molsonator posted at 08:23:38 PM on Mar 07, 2017:

I can only imagine what a shipwreck Swampbubbles is right now. I haven't visited that site in several years. Definitely won't be any time soon. Yuck!

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Were you smacked down over there? Did you leave with your tail between your legs and your still emotionally upset about it?

posted by reggie on Mar 08, 2017 at 06:26:44 am     #  

as the right has allowed into their ranks

We should do lunch. I want to learn more about what I as a conservative can do to disallow ugly people people "from my ranks."

posted by justread on Mar 08, 2017 at 07:44:59 am     #   5 people liked this

reggie posted at 05:26:44 AM on Mar 08, 2017:
Molsonator posted at 08:23:38 PM on Mar 07, 2017:

I can only imagine what a shipwreck Swampbubbles is right now. I haven't visited that site in several years. Definitely won't be any time soon. Yuck!

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Were you smacked down over there? Did you leave with your tail between your legs and your still emotionally upset about it?

"tis an unweeded garden, that grows to seed, things rank and gross in nature possess it merely."-- Hamlet

posted by justread on Mar 08, 2017 at 07:55:00 am     #   3 people liked this

justread posted at 06:44:59 AM on Mar 08, 2017:

as the right has allowed into their ranks

We should do lunch. I want to learn more about what I as a conservative can do to disallow ugly people people "from my ranks."

I'm down with lunch. Without devolving too deeply down the rabbit hole, the Alt Right now has a seat at the table. It's unfortunate that common sense conservatives have to share this table with that fringe, but they (alt-right) have a lot of power and energy behind them. I really don't know what I would do if that element really crept into power in the Democratic party. Right now, we are battling between institutional Liberal-lites and actual Socialistic ideals. While neither is ideal, both come from places of doing good and doing the right thing. I'm not sure the Alt-Right does, it's more a reaction to feeling powerless, and has become the reddit of political movements (i.e.-nothing is off limits). I worry about allowing insidious ideas to creep into some version of normal. If you are a gatekeeper to the party that allows them in, perhaps some criticism is a good place to begin.

I'm really happy to have a respectful discussion between a pragmatic liberal and a common sense conservative. That's the intelligent conversation that our country should be built upon. The balance between the 2, makes our country great.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 08, 2017 at 10:00:25 am     #   1 person liked this

I'll say it - is this truly some alt-right conservative group, or is it some liberal group wanting to make it look like the alt right is doing something, trying to make it look like the alt right is mainstream, etc.

All groups - liberal, republican, Christian, Muslim, etc., have extremist. Unfortunately, some like to paint the extremist as the mainstream of the group which is not accurate.

posted by MsArcher on Mar 08, 2017 at 10:02:33 am     #   3 people liked this

MsArcher posted at 09:02:33 AM on Mar 08, 2017:

I'll say it - is this truly some alt-right conservative group, or is it some liberal group wanting to make it look like the alt right is doing something, trying to make it look like the alt right is mainstream, etc.

All groups - liberal, republican, Christian, Muslim, etc., have extremist. Unfortunately, some like to paint the extremist as the mainstream of the group which is not accurate.

Unfortunately you have seen a lot of that. The sylvania garage painting being the latest example in this area. Everyone quick to blame alt-right, yet it ended up being a Muslim doing the crime to another Muslim.

Just crazy times right now. It's sad all around.

posted by Xbuckeyex on Mar 08, 2017 at 10:06:45 am     #  

MsArcher posted at 09:02:33 AM on Mar 08, 2017:

I'll say it - is this truly some alt-right conservative group, or is it some liberal group wanting to make it look like the alt right is doing something, trying to make it look like the alt right is mainstream, etc.

All groups - liberal, republican, Christian, Muslim, etc., have extremist. Unfortunately, some like to paint the extremist as the mainstream of the group which is not accurate.

Breitbart is the home base to the Alt-Right, in all forms. They are not fringe, they are a top 5 US internet site with the former editor in the WH and the front row center seat at press conferences. There is no other movement currently in this country even remotely comparable.

The "liberal group posing as an alt right group" story is a fantasy cooked up to take wind out of the opposing argument.

THIS particular group, Evropa, is no joke. Facsists formed by former skinheads in the National Youth Front. They have existed for 2 years
https://itsgoingdown.org/fascist-group-identity-evropa-begins-poster-campaign-antifa-respond/

They host events where the keynote speaker is Richard Spencer. When Republicans accuse the left of playing the Nazi card a little too quickly, it's because the left is VERY concerned about THESE groups, gaining power and traction. The very best thing to do is for both sides to speak out against these people. Unfortunately, it's very easy to just criticize the critics instead. This is a very big deal. These people are very bad. Their message is insidious.

Reagan would have NEVER put up with this shit.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 08, 2017 at 10:22:49 am     #   1 person liked this

Xbuckeyex posted at 09:06:45 AM on Mar 08, 2017:
MsArcher posted at 09:02:33 AM on Mar 08, 2017:

I'll say it - is this truly some alt-right conservative group, or is it some liberal group wanting to make it look like the alt right is doing something, trying to make it look like the alt right is mainstream, etc.

All groups - liberal, republican, Christian, Muslim, etc., have extremist. Unfortunately, some like to paint the extremist as the mainstream of the group which is not accurate.

Unfortunately you have seen a lot of that. The sylvania garage painting being the latest example in this area. Everyone quick to blame alt-right, yet it ended up being a Muslim doing the crime to another Muslim.

Just crazy times right now. It's sad all around.

The shame of that story, among many, is that it read like it was a liberal ploy, when in reality, it was a personal beef. Acting out and trying to heap blame on other groups is every bit as wrong, if not worse, than the people that do the acts in the first place. There is no room for that sort of act either.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 08, 2017 at 10:28:58 am     #  

Agreed. I think the media plays a huge role as well. It's no longer about being right, it's about being the first with the story.

Investigative reporting is dead in the world of blogs, twitter, FB and the like.

I'm don't believe the media is the enemy of the people but I do believe they have bias, and it's to the point I don't know what is true or false anymore.

posted by Xbuckeyex on Mar 08, 2017 at 10:35:44 am     #  

" I really don't know what I would do if that element really crept into power in the Democratic party"

Really?

We just suffered through eight years of "that element" - and he isn't finished.

posted by Foodie on Mar 08, 2017 at 10:41:24 am     #  

Foodie posted at 09:41:24 AM on Mar 08, 2017:

" I really don't know what I would do if that element really crept into power in the Democratic party"

Really?

We just suffered through eight years of "that element" - and he isn't finished.

Look-I'm not talking about taking turns governing. That's part of the deal. As Obama says, the pendulum swings both ways. THIS, this alt-right, is different. This isn't the mirror image of a Mother Jones or a Bernie Bro, this is something altogether different. I would hope that you'd recognize that.

Sorry you've suffered through 8 years of not agreeing. Which was preceded by 8 years of you agreeing? then before that, 8 years of not agreeing, then before that 12 years of agreeing? None of that has ANYTHING to do with the alt-Right

posted by ahmahler on Mar 08, 2017 at 10:51:07 am     #   1 person liked this

Both sides need to simmer down. The building burners, the traffic stoppers, those who want to bring back cross burnings are at the extreme reaches of sane discourse and have fat chance of convincing America to follow their thinking. Gag and bag the shiters and spitters.

posted by Mariner on Mar 08, 2017 at 11:13:22 am     #  

"We just suffered through eight years of "that element" - and he isn't finished."

Oh, you mean Barack Hussein Obama?

Yeah, that element that confiscated your guns and turned America into a socialist wasteland run by death panels and FEMA relocation sites?

Yeah, he's not done yet! Now that he's not president anymore and doesn't have access to the huge power structure involved in that office, he's free to do things like WRITE BOOKS! HOLY FUCK WE ARE SO FUCKED YOU GUYS THE NEXT THING IS GONNA BE THAT EVERYONE IS GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR INSURANCE AND SHIT FUCK

posted by endcycle on Mar 08, 2017 at 11:19:42 am     #  

Sorry Mariner- i know you're coming from a place of calmness and reason (no irony intended). There are indeed ALWAYS fringe elements representing all sides. Allowing everyone a voice is important. First amendment and all that. Understanding the implications of taking these fringe voices and giving them real power, is another thing entirely. We now have a pipeline from these fringe voices, up the chains of power. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, political justification, has real implications. I personally worry, that the far right, has the REAL power in the party now, and the libertarian wing was viewed by many as just a stop on the way towards a full dismantling of our institutions. Combine that with greed for power, and you have a movement without a head, and only people taking advantage.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 08, 2017 at 11:28:42 am     #  

ahmahler posted at 09:22:49 AM on Mar 08, 2017:
MsArcher posted at 09:02:33 AM on Mar 08, 2017:

I'll say it - is this truly some alt-right conservative group, or is it some liberal group wanting to make it look like the alt right is doing something, trying to make it look like the alt right is mainstream, etc.

All groups - liberal, republican, Christian, Muslim, etc., have extremist. Unfortunately, some like to paint the extremist as the mainstream of the group which is not accurate.

Breitbart is the home base to the Alt-Right, in all forms. They are not fringe, they are a top 5 US internet site with the former editor in the WH and the front row center seat at press conferences. There is no other movement currently in this country even remotely comparable.

The "liberal group posing as an alt right group" story is a fantasy cooked up to take wind out of the opposing argument.

THIS particular group, Evropa, is no joke. Facsists formed by former skinheads in the National Youth Front. They have existed for 2 years
https://itsgoingdown.org/fascist-group-identity-evropa-begins-poster-campaign-antifa-respond/

They host events where the keynote speaker is Richard Spencer. When Republicans accuse the left of playing the Nazi card a little too quickly, it's because the left is VERY concerned about THESE groups, gaining power and traction. The very best thing to do is for both sides to speak out against these people. Unfortunately, it's very easy to just criticize the critics instead. This is a very big deal. These people are very bad. Their message is insidious.

Reagan would have NEVER put up with this shit.

Sorry, but Breitbart is not the home of the alt-right, it is conservatives who have been long ignored. If you look at the definition of alt-right, it was started by a white supremacist. That is not what Brietbart is about, but that is what the left wants you to think Breitbart is about. Again, make the fringe look like they are mainstream. It is not white supremacists who got Trump elected, it was conservatives who were tired of the establishment making promises and then not following through. That is not alt-right. This in itself is part of the problem.

posted by MsArcher on Mar 08, 2017 at 12:16:43 pm     #   2 people liked this

ahmahler posted at 09:00:25 AM on Mar 08, 2017:
justread posted at 06:44:59 AM on Mar 08, 2017:

as the right has allowed into their ranks

We should do lunch. I want to learn more about what I as a conservative can do to disallow ugly people people "from my ranks."

I'm down with lunch. Without devolving too deeply down the rabbit hole, the Alt Right now has a seat at the table. It's unfortunate that common sense conservatives have to share this table with that fringe, but they (alt-right) have a lot of power and energy behind them. I really don't know what I would do if that element really crept into power in the Democratic party. Right now, we are battling between institutional Liberal-lites and actual Socialistic ideals. While neither is ideal, both come from places of doing good and doing the right thing. I'm not sure the Alt-Right does, it's more a reaction to feeling powerless, and has become the reddit of political movements (i.e.-nothing is off limits). I worry about allowing insidious ideas to creep into some version of normal. If you are a gatekeeper to the party that allows them in, perhaps some criticism is a good place to begin.

I'm really happy to have a respectful discussion between a pragmatic liberal and a common sense conservative. That's the intelligent conversation that our country should be built upon. The balance between the 2, makes our country great.

I like the idea of common-sense conservatives and reasonable liberals dropping the focus on the extremes and seeing what we have together closer to the center.

posted by justread on Mar 08, 2017 at 12:43:58 pm     #  

Would be nice for the media to do that too... but extreme sells.
(We don't buy sex anymore.)

posted by justread on Mar 08, 2017 at 12:45:22 pm     #   1 person liked this

OOO OOO CAN I COME TOO PLEASE

I promise not to scream or jump on the tables. Much.

posted by endcycle on Mar 08, 2017 at 01:10:45 pm     #  

MsArcher posted at 11:16:43 AM on Mar 08, 2017:
ahmahler posted at 09:22:49 AM on Mar 08, 2017:
MsArcher posted at 09:02:33 AM on Mar 08, 2017:

I'll say it - is this truly some alt-right conservative group, or is it some liberal group wanting to make it look like the alt right is doing something, trying to make it look like the alt right is mainstream, etc.

All groups - liberal, republican, Christian, Muslim, etc., have extremist. Unfortunately, some like to paint the extremist as the mainstream of the group which is not accurate.

Breitbart is the home base to the Alt-Right, in all forms. They are not fringe, they are a top 5 US internet site with the former editor in the WH and the front row center seat at press conferences. There is no other movement currently in this country even remotely comparable.

The "liberal group posing as an alt right group" story is a fantasy cooked up to take wind out of the opposing argument.

THIS particular group, Evropa, is no joke. Facsists formed by former skinheads in the National Youth Front. They have existed for 2 years
https://itsgoingdown.org/fascist-group-identity-evropa-begins-poster-campaign-antifa-respond/

They host events where the keynote speaker is Richard Spencer. When Republicans accuse the left of playing the Nazi card a little too quickly, it's because the left is VERY concerned about THESE groups, gaining power and traction. The very best thing to do is for both sides to speak out against these people. Unfortunately, it's very easy to just criticize the critics instead. This is a very big deal. These people are very bad. Their message is insidious.

Reagan would have NEVER put up with this shit.

Sorry, but Breitbart is not the home of the alt-right, it is conservatives who have been long ignored. If you look at the definition of alt-right, it was started by a white supremacist. That is not what Brietbart is about, but that is what the left wants you to think Breitbart is about. Again, make the fringe look like they are mainstream. It is not white supremacists who got Trump elected, it was conservatives who were tired of the establishment making promises and then not following through. That is not alt-right. This in itself is part of the problem.

I think someone needs to tell Steve Bannon that's not what it's about. Admittedly, Breitbart was not founded under as a racist or anti-semitic operation. It has morphed into a far "edgier" Fox News under Bannon's stewardship.

Bannon-"We're (Breitbart) the platform for the alt-right" At the RNC, 2016.

Further Bannon quote, while editor:
Bannon dismisses the alt-right's appeal to racists as happenstance. "Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," he says. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements."

White Supremacists didn't get Trump elected, but they read the same publication and fully supported him. The lines have gotten very muddy. The left can't be the ones to clarify all o fthis. Real Republicans need to stand up and draw lines. Many have. Many, try to make Breitbart, Bannon, Miller, Spicer, seem "not that bad". The right lets themselves be grouped with the White Supremacists by not recognizing the platforms they share and disavowing. The Left isn't even saying Trump wasn't elected legitimately. What they are saying is-There is a very scary faction that allowed him to come to power within the party. That would not be said if Cruz or Rubio had been the nominee or president. This was a movement of support unique to Trump. Sadly, it is now a movement that is also woven into our new administration.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 08, 2017 at 01:58:26 pm     #  

Does the left disavow Margaret Sanger? Does the left disavow the rioters at Berkeley? Does the left acknowledge that there is a fringe group of muslims who want the US gone? No to all of those.

Just because some fringe group agrees with some of what a party/candidate/politician/whoever says, doesn't mean the party/candidate/politician/whoever agrees with everything the fringe says. Such supposition is ridiculous and typically is only demanded of Republicans - hence Trump was asked to disavow the KKK, but the MSM hasn't asked Bernie Sanders to disavow the supporter who was arrested for making threats to Jewish Centers.

Breitbart isn't bad; Bannon isn't bad, Miller isn't bad, Spicer isn't bad. The problem is, they aren't liberals and therefore they must be bad. Do you even read Breitbart? What part of Breitbart is supportive of white supremacy?

Libs need to pull up their big boy/big girl panties and live with the choice the voters made and stop crying wolf all of the time. People are getting tired of it.

posted by MsArcher on Mar 08, 2017 at 08:06:40 pm     #   1 person liked this

My big boy panties?! Zing.

To answer your questions-no opinion, yes and yes (although, their actual presence here is vastly overstated). That was really easy and painless.in fact, I'd argue that the violence in Berkeley did the opposite of what actual protesters wanted, but the violence was from anarchist/ anti fascists-the same fringe that sacked the Starbucks in DC during inauguration.

Ok-your turn. And for a little light reading...

Here's a quick concise unbiased overview of Bannon/ Breitbart
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/14/steve-bannon-accused-of-having-white-supremacist-views/

Smells racist to me.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 08, 2017 at 08:25:19 pm     #  

Snopes is not unbiased and that article is nothing but a bunch of innuendo and unsubstantiated claims.

Meanwhile , you're asking me to prove a negative, that Breitbart isn't a white supremacist site. How about proving that it is?

So you agree disavow the Berkeley riots, but the left in general has not. Outside of Bill Maher and the creator of Dilbert, the left have been either silent or supportive of shutting down free speech with violence.

You may agree that there is a muslim radical fringe, but the left will not acknowledge it.

And finally, Margaret Sanger. Dear, old Margaret Sanger, the great eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood. Yeah, can't disavow someone who is for killing black babies. How strange.

posted by MsArcher on Mar 08, 2017 at 08:38:23 pm     #  

Welp. I've got nothing. I think we live in different worlds.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 08, 2017 at 10:45:04 pm     #  

"Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place, huh? Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.
Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach "military age". Then they think you are just fine. Just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

George Carlin

posted by reggie on Mar 09, 2017 at 07:08:53 am     #  

My big boy panties?! Zing.

Ok. That was a zing.

But let's look at the point: There is a profound over-reaction taking place among seemingly high emotion individuals who "identify" as liberal/progressive. I am only going by behavior on the high emotion part. Not my opinion of their opinion. I believe MsA. is referencing this highly emotional over-reaction when she makes her panty adjustment recommendation to the group in general.

I would personally appreciate the realization (not you) that elections will continue in this country, and would ask that the henny penny contingent (Not saying ahmahler is one...) remember that the pendulum will swing hard left next time, this election did conservatives no long term favors, the long term view still predicts a progressive, diverse population no matter WHAT the right does, and we can all just take a breath. It's right there in the data. "The Left" has shorter term threats. If they can control the urge to die on every freaking mountain every freaking time someone finds a crumb of something that may be something they will do themselves less harm in the long run. Short term, the tantrums are making reasonable people kind of hate the kids. See... it's really hard to say it without zinging somebody.

posted by justread on Mar 09, 2017 at 07:22:20 am     #   2 people liked this

Justread-well made points. OUR (speaking as a liberal, for liberals) major concern, is the shift towards legitimization of disinformation. The electorate is handed talking points by a short list of sources, that have no interest in journalism. Then, the actual journalistic reporting, is de-legitimatized as MSM or Left wing Media. It truly creates 2 different realities. As a very informed liberal, I try very hard to filter my sources, to keep the salacious conspiracy theory left out. I get the sense that the majority of liberals are the same. I'm more likely to read Wall St Journal reporting, than Mother Jones (although, they do good work, sometimes). And I know you, Justread, are the same. You don't need confirmation bias in order to be informed, and can read the news from MSM and be well informed without altering your world view. It's the very powerful edge (not fringe) that largely gets their information, opinions and talking points from these sources. Rush, Hannity, etc.. trade in disinformation. A healthy dollop of the right wing electorate is informed through this, and Breitbart is like manna from heaven.

So, what does this have to do with my, or anyone's panties?

well, since you asked, there now exists a large piece of right wing (I can't call them conservative) acolytes, that have completely suspended critical thinking. Egregious rhetoric or behavior is routinely dismissed by all sorts of theories and excuses until the left loses energy. The left does this? Not like this. Here's an example-In any opinion poll of, let's say ACA-if you dig into the numbers, a large chunk of the people that disapprove, do so because the Act doesn't go FAR enough. You have 20% of liberals disapproving of the ACA because it wasn't strong enough. That critical thinking, kept an awful lot of liberals home during the election. And, that's on us, for not getting a better candidate. On the flip side, Trump was the least popular candidate through primary season. Once he became the candidate, no one one on the right would criticize him any more. The trickle down to that is, awful behavior is tolerated. His approval rating among Republicans is currently higher than Reagan EVER saw. Tell me times haven't changed.

The glimmer of hope, in addition to the pendulum? We still have an independent judiciary. He have some very smart, independent people in congress. Hell, Lindsay Graham may save us all. Rob Portman, Susan Collins, John McCain. There are still leaders on the right that believe in the institutions. While we may not agree on policy, with that list, I have faith that they can govern. And, God Damn...the constitution is a beaut.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 09, 2017 at 09:23:17 am     #  

"... elections will continue in this country, and would ask that the henny penny contingent remember that the pendulum will swing hard left next time ..."

W. Bush winning in 2000 inspired the left-wing Netroots movement that saw state level victories in 2004, and then the democrats obtained the majority in the House of Representatives in 2006. The Netroots even targeted democrats who were not liberal enough.

Obama winning in 2008 inspired the right-wing Tea Party that helped the republican party obtain the majority in the House of Representatives in 2010 and state level victories thereafter. The Tea Party even targeted republicans who were not conservative enough.

Trump winning in 2016 has inspired the left-wing to organize again.

Each side elects assholes that inspire the other side to elect assholes.

print "Infinite Loop\n" while 1

posted by jr on Mar 09, 2017 at 09:35:32 am     #   2 people liked this

Shame we can't harness that loop for perpetual energy generation.

posted by justread on Mar 09, 2017 at 10:41:35 am     #   1 person liked this

"Do you have a geothermal loop?"

"Nope... asshole loop. Less digging."

posted by justread on Mar 09, 2017 at 10:44:00 am     #   2 people liked this

amahler - there is so much to touch on in your response.

What you call disinformation, is in fact a different viewpoint of the same situation and/or facts. But because it's not how the libs want people to see something, it is fake news or disinformation. Both the left and the right are handed talking points by the people they like to listen to.

It's great that you get news from WSJ; but most people do not, on either side of the political aisle.

Rush, Hannity, Breitbart are not trading in disinformation. That is what libs want to think, so that they can discount every thing those sources say. But it's not true. Have you ever actually listened to them, read them? First they espouse a specific conservative ideology and then they look at the news, events, etc., from that perspective as opposed to the perspective of the left. That is not disinformation.

Trump was the least popular candidate through primary season. Once he became the candidate, no one one on the right would criticize him any more.

This statement just confuses me. The least popular? He won the primary, how does the least popular candidate win? He was the most popular in the primaries, but admittedly did not have a majority. Second, a TON of conservatives criticized Trump before the election and continue to do so! I support Trump, I voted for him, but even at this point I don't agree with everything he has done (he never should have criticized that Carrier union rep for speaking out, for example).

Did any Democrats criticize Obama? Very rarely.

Let's look at just one recent event:

Russia, We have to investigate the Russian link with the Trump campaign!! Is there any evidence of a link? No, but we need to investigate it! Then Trump comes out and says Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Where's the evidence?!? You can't make such claims without evidence!

posted by MsArcher on Mar 09, 2017 at 10:47:21 am     #  

Mrs Archer-Clearly, I've criticized some of your sources of information. Of course I've listened to and read all of this. It's entertainment dressed up as information. I was a big sports fan for a long time. When sports talk radio first came onto the air, it was appealing to me, with long drives. Unfortunately, it turned out to really be about "hot takes" and not actually discussing the sport. More personality than strategy. That is what the right wing talk radio is as well. while they may touch on ideas and ideals, it's really "hot takes. This dogmatic drone turns people away from critical and nuanced thinking.

You may not think dems criticized Obama, but that's quite mistaken. Want to have an in depth conversation about Obama with me? Sure, happy to oblige. I like/ liked him, but I have criticism of many things he did. I'm happy to call those out as quickly as I'll applaud other things. The only way to really understand your opinion, is to see if they stand up to the harshest critics. There are plenty of pundits on the left I just can't pay attention to, they're syncophants.

re: Trump's popularity-His approval rating didn't start leading until May, when he wrapped up the nom. He ran behind both Cruz and Kasich, mostly in the 20's among Registered Republicans from the moment he entered (November 2015, he was at 6% approval among Republicans) until May of 2016. That language may have been clumsy. Even after locking up the nomination, he didn't go over 50% approval among Republicans until AFTER the convention. The other choices simply split the establishment votes.

re: Russia-you really need to broaden your sources. Here's an easy graphic to see the web.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/03/the-web-of-relationships-between-team-trump-and-russia/

If you don't think the WaPo is a trustworthy source (they are). There is a similiar WSJ graphic, but sign in is required:
http://www.wsj.com/graphics/trump-russia-ties/

There's a lot of weirdness going on right now. Was the Trump campaign is cahoots with Russia? I don't know. Were there some questionable conversations from mebers of teh campaign? That's been proven and admitted (Flynn, Sessions, Manafort, Kushner etc). Did Russia provide Wikileaks with Intel? Possibly, but likely? Did Russia prefer Trump? Yes. Does Putin get involved in influencing elections? More a half dozen confirmed times prior to 2016. That's a lot of something. Is it damning? Not necessarily. Hell, I don't even think Trump knew most of this. Now, the wiretapping thing? oooh, that's juicy. a) Obama didn't order a wiretap b) The justice department MAY have, but probably didn't c) IF they did, then there's even more damning evidence d) If anything , it was one ecommerce server that had some very strange exchanges with a Russian bank.

Here's some fact checking from NY Times (which you probably won't believe)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/fact-checking-trumps-defenses-of-his-wiretapping-claim.html?_r=0

The institutions of Journalism still matter. If we keep creating realities where everything is affirmation, we won't learn anything, and pretty soon we're arguing for parades with Jesus riding dinosaurs.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 09, 2017 at 11:33:00 am     #  

Let me clarify that very few elected Democrats or MSM criticized Obama; elected Republicans have trashed Trump when he announced, during the primaries, after he was nominated and even now, when he is the sitting president.

Russia - it's amazing that all of a sudden Russia is an issue.

Was Russia an issue when Clinton did her famous reset button:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset

Was Russia an issue when Obama told Medvedev to tell Vlad to give him time to get rid of our arsenal until after his election:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/obama-russia-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility/article/634473

All sorts of politicians have been in contact with the Russian Ambassador - Pelosi, Schumer, etc. But its only when Republicans meet with him that it is an issue. Holy Cow, under Clinton's leadership, we sold 20% of our uranium to them and that was perfectly fine, but have a conversation and the world is ending.

If there was a problem with the Russian Ambassador, why was he at Trump's speech to congress sitting with the dems?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/02/russian-ambassador-kislyak-attended-trump-congressional-speech-tuesday-sat-with-democrats/

But I think your last paragraph really hits the heart of the matter. You consider journalism an institution; I think it has gone so far off course, compared to what it used to be that it is questionable at best and corrupt at its worst. How many news stories have come out in the last month that have been proven to be false? Or just have no foundation in reality? For example, the CNN video of Bannon in the Oval Office - reports were that Trump was furious and yelling at Bannon. Really? Based on what? A video with no sound?

Bottom line, the MSM is no longer pushing their agenda, Trump is going right to the people and using other means to get the message across, a message that the MSM and libs don't agree with

posted by MsArcher on Mar 09, 2017 at 02:04:24 pm     #  

Tough to hold officials accountable, when they're the ones feeding you information. I seem to recall the Press being favorably mentioned in the Constitution, right before than one amendment discussing militias being armed.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 09, 2017 at 02:21:14 pm     #  

right before than one amendment discussing militias being armed.

I see what you did there.

I also see what the US Supreme Court did in District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago.

The SCOTUS has upheld the 2A as an individual right on multiple occasions.

It has been well documented that something akin to what became the second amendment was requested by multiple states during the constitution ratification debates based on their recent memory of British efforts to disarm INDIVIDUALS before the outbreak of the revolutionary war.

(I think this is where you say muskets are ok.)

posted by justread on Mar 09, 2017 at 03:22:49 pm     #  

muskets are okay by me. I just like how the first amendment comes before the second. I feel like that's significant somehow. Fortunately, the 25th is towards the end.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 09, 2017 at 03:35:15 pm     #  

That might be partially the hierarchy of chronology. ;D

posted by justread on Mar 09, 2017 at 03:43:48 pm     #  

Yeah, that explanation doesn't help to further my argument. I'll ignore it.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 09, 2017 at 04:02:33 pm     #  

TL;DR

  • The democrat machine and the pro-Hillary mainstream media chose Hillary as the democrat party's presidential nominee.
  • Hillary's campaign ignored warning signs at the local level, especially in the Great Lakes Region.
  • Hillary did not enthuse people like Obama did.
  • Russia's influence is manufactured news.
  • Facebook's fake news problem is manufactured news.
  • The Bernie Bros was manufactured news.
  • Journalists live in their own filter bubble on Twitter.
  • Regarding national politics, NO media org should be trusted.
  • Only trust individual journalists.
  • The Washington Post is becoming a joke.


Did the Russians rig the democrat primary process? Nope. The national democrat party did that. The democrat machine (DNC) chose Hillary years ago.

Did the Russians help Bernie Sanders win the Wisconsin and Michigan primaries?

Those primary losses should have been huge red flag warnings to the Hillary campaign, but they weren't.

Did the Russians prevent Hillary from campaigning in Wisconsin in the fall of 2016?

After the November 2016 election, Sanders acknowledged that Trump tapped into some of the same voter disgruntlement that attracted people to Sanders.

Michael Moore predicted that Trump would beat Hillary because of what Moore observed within his home state of Michigan.

The Sanders campaign tried to warn and help the Hillary campaign about what was happening at the local level, but the Hillary people ignored the warnings.

In January 2017, NPR interviewed a local democrat operative from the Youngstown area. Before the election, this operative tried to warn the Hillary people about the surprising political changes that he observed in Mahoning County, but the Hillary campaign ignored him.

How may local democrat operatives were ignored by the Hillary campaign/DNC?

Hillary/DNC executed a militantly arrogant campaign. They had no interest in the concerns of rust belt democrats. Hillary/DNC deserved to lose.

Politicians lose elections because they are losers. But loser politicians don't think that way. They believe that they lost because of other factors.

Sorry, but it's not the fault of Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, non-voters, nor the Russians.

If Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee in 2000, then Gore would have been president, and the Florida recount would have never been a story. Bill Clinton won TN in 1992 and 1996. How in the hell does a sitting Vice President, running for President not win his home state when the current two-time president won the same state twice?

100 percent of the blame for a loss goes to the losing politician.

In 2016, however, the blame could be shared with the national democrat party and the mainstream media for enabling a sham primary process.

But the democrat party has issues at all levels of government.

January 2017 The Atlantic story

Democrats will end the Obama era with 39 fewer House seats (233 to 194), three fewer Senate seats (51 to 48), and 12 fewer governorships (28 to 16).

January 2017 FiveThirtyEight story

At the beginning of Obama’s term, Democrats controlled 59 percent of state legislatures, while now they control only 31 percent, the lowest percentage for the party since the turn of the 20th century.

They held 29 governor’s offices and now have only 16, the party’s lowest number since 1920.


The national political media CHOOSES which stories to make popular. I don't understand how the rigged democrat primary process is not viewed as violence toward democracy. That's a bigger story than senseless narratives, like the Russians' alleged influence and the alleged fake news problem.

Fake news, propaganda, and yellow journalism have existed for decades.

... as Tim O’Reilly wrote:

“When sites like the Huffington Post post partisan clickbait that is clearly untrue, they deserve to be shunned, not reshared.”

Is this something new? No, No. Jack Shafer (Politico) explains why:

“We’d have more cause for alarm if fake news was something new, but it isn’t. If you define fake news as deliberately erroneous reports — not journalistic mistakes and miscues like much of the reporting in the run up to the Iraq War — fake news has been a reading staple for as long as the journalists have spun words."


And while fake news was mentioned prior to the November 2016 election, the mainstream media teamed together to turn the issue into an extinction level event after Trump won. The media would have never done that if Hillary had won.

In my opinion, if the national political media was concerned about freedom and democracy, then they would investigate what happened with the 2015-2016 democrat primary process. Who was involved with that fraud? When did the scheme get hatched? What prevents it from occurring again in either party?


In July 2016, Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chairwoman, and in October 2016, CNN booted Donna Brazile.

Did great investigative journalism cause those happenings? Nope. Wikileaks dumps did.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, abruptly said she was resigning after a trove of leaked emails showed party officials conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Hacked emails posted by WikiLeaks show Brazile sharing with the Clinton campaign a question that would be posed to Hillary Clinton before the March CNN Democratic debate in Flint, as well as a possible question prior to a CNN town hall, also in March.

That's only what was known and known only because of hackers and Wikileaks. The media played no part except as info-forwarders. How much more existed that was never exposed?

Investigate Russian connections? Fine. Then investigate the democrat party too.


I consider the Washington Post to be a clickbait, content mill, nearly as untrustworthy as Breitbart. WaPo has become lazy and irresponsible.


This was an appropriate way for BezPo to close out 2016:


From the Forbes article:

On Friday the Washington Post sparked a wave of fear when it ran the breathless headline “Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, U.S. officials say.”

Yet, it turns out this narrative was false and as the chronology below will show, illustrates how effectively false and misleading news can ricochet through the global news echo chamber through the pages of top tier newspapers that fail to properly verify their facts.


From The Intercept article:

Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic claims.

So the key scary claim of the Post story — that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid — was false. All the alarmist tough-guy statements issued by political officials who believed the Post’s claim were based on fiction.

This matters not only because one of the nation’s major newspapers once again published a wildly misleading, fearmongering story about Russia.

It matters even more because it reflects the deeply irrational and ever-spiraling fever that is being cultivated in U.S. political discourse and culture about the threat posed by Moscow.

The Post has many excellent reporters and smart editors. They have produced many great stories this year. But this kind of blatantly irresponsible and sensationalist tabloid behavior — which tracks what they did when promoting that grotesque PropOrNot blacklist of U.S. news outlets accused of being Kremlin tools — is a byproduct of the Anything Goes mentality that now shapes mainstream discussion of Russia, Putin, and the Grave Threat to All Things Decent in America that they pose.

The level of groupthink, fearmongering, coercive peer pressure, and über-nationalism has not been seen since the halcyon days of 2002 and 2003. Indeed, the very same people who back then smeared anyone questioning official claims as Saddam sympathizers or stooges and left-wing un-American loons are back for their sequel, accusing anyone who expresses any skepticism toward claims about Russia of being Putin sympathizers and Kremlin operatives and stooges.

But it’s all severely exacerbated by social media in ways that we don’t yet fully understand. A large percentage of journalists sit on Twitter all day. It’s their primary window into the world.


Regarding national politics, I don't trust any media org. I only trust individual journalists.

At the moment, the only journalist I trust is Gleen Greenwald who writes for The Intercept. Greenwald wrote The Intercept stories that I linked to above. Matt Taibbi who writes for Rolling Stone seems okay too.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald

It seems that many journalists dislike Greenwald because Greenwald identifies fraud wherever he sees it. That's why I like him.

"When a reporter sits down at the typewriter, he's nobody's friend." - quote by Theodore White


Another brilliantly long article by Greenwald:

After [WaPo] spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all.

As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions. Baron himself, editorial leader of the Post, is a perfect case study in this irresponsible tactic.

... what was the Post’s motive in publishing two false stories about Russia that, very predictably, generated massive attention, traffic, and political impact?

Whatever the motives, the effects of these false stories are exactly the same as those of whatever one regards as Fake News. The false claims travel all over the internet, deceiving huge numbers into believing them.

The propagators of the falsehoods receive ample profit from their false, viral “news.”

It's business. It's better to be popular than factual.

That the story ends up being completely discredited matters little. The damage is done, and the benefits received.

But whatever one wants to call this type of behavior from the Post, it is a much greater menace given how far the reach is of the institutions that engage in it.


Journalists love to write about how everyone else lives in a filter bubble, but the national media live in their own filter bubble or echo chamber called Media Twitter.

Tweets make lazy political journalism easier than ever.

Do crack investigative reporters exist? Yes. Do they mostly end up fired, or at least in constant conflict with authority? They do. Meanwhile, most of the press remains, as ever, a content mill.

Twitter-based journalism is disturbing for reasons that go far beyond questions of intellectual property and attribution. Using Twitter as a prism through which to examine and report the world creates a narrow and distorted impression of reality.

And with journalists already prone to clubby insularity, Twitter provides new ways for them to confirm their preexisting worldviews, and further wall themselves off from ordinary experience.


During the 2015-2016 democrat primary, the Bernie Bros story was pretty much fake news, peddled by the mainstream media who supported Hillary. If not fake, then it was sensationalized and irresponsible. More journalistic malpractice.

Bernie was never suppose to be as popular nor as competitive as he wound up being. He became an irritant to the national democrat party and to Hillary's friends in the media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Bro

Questions about allegations' validity

In February 2016, political scientists attempted to assess the reality of the Bernie Bro phenomenon by analyzing Twitter data, and concluded that the existence of male Sanders supporters attacking Clinton with sexist language is real, but the numbers are small and dwarfed by the number of conservatives and Trump supporters attacking Clinton with such language.

Women supporting Sanders, including Sarah Leonard, a senior editor at The Nation, object that the term on the grounds that it "diminishes" Sanders' many female supporters, falsely tarring the entire campaign with the misogyny of a few bad apples.


Back to the above Current Affairs story:

To see the consequences of Twitter-centric journalism, one can examine one of the most repeated stories of the Democratic primary: the so-called rise of the “BernieBro.” In October of 2015, Robinson Meyer of The Atlantic published a brief article titled “Here Comes the Berniebro.”

Meyer, a largely Twitter-dwelling journalist (having 40,100 tweets to his name, plus 41,100 “likes” of other people’s tweets), suggested that a new phenomenon had arisen in American politics. The Bernie Sanders campaign was attracting a noxious wave of supporters, whom Meyer christened the “BernieBros.”

But aside from Meyer’s bizarre contempt for Sanders voters’ idealism, the article suffered from a simple problem: there was no evidence whatsoever that some kind of “BernieBro” trend actually existed. The theory that there was something distinctly “bro-ish” about Sanders supporters was in direct conflict with the actual demographic facts.

Aside from a few dozen isolated tweets, largely by anonymous and unpopular users, nobody could seem to locate the whereabouts of these storied “bros.”

People of all stripes are assholes on the internet, though, and no effort was made to answer the real questions, which was how many of these “bros” actually existed.

In a sensible world, then, Meyer’s article should not have even been a footnote in the history of the election. It should have been laughed off as shockingly obtuse. Yet somehow, a flimsy story based on a sample of Robinson Meyer’s Facebook newsfeed ended up – miserably – setting the tone for much of the remainder of the online primary.

Instead, the political media in residence on Twitter took the specter of Bernie Bros and went hog wild.

Soon everyone from Jamil Smith at The New Republic to Amanda Marcotte of Salon had latched onto the fantasy of an army of evil white men who supported socialist policies as a means of furthering racism and sexism.

Smith wrote that unless Sanders could somehow contain the “bros,” they would damage his political prospects. The New Yorker published a cringingly unfunny and cruel “BernieBro Code” containing the “rules” such creatures live by.

Paul Krugman, dissatisfied with Sanders’ economic proposals, went so far as to declare that Bernie himself “is becoming a Bernie Bro.”

The Sanders campaign was forced to apologize for the BernieBros, despite there being scant evidence of their actual existence.


F*cking media.

The explosion of the fake BernieBro trend was both fascinating and appalling. The narrative ruled media Twitter for months, and despite demographic data continually debunking it, pundits clung to it like a safety blanket.

It became a convenient way to dismiss all criticisms of Hillary Clinton that didn’t come from someone with a byline in a major publication or a degree from an Ivy League school.

In fact, Olivia Nuzzi of The Daily Beast reported in June that she was skeptical of the BernieBros idea, for the simple reason that the Clinton campaign had tried to pitch her a story about the phenomenon.

The BernieBros line proved convenient for the Clinton camp, as it shifted press coverage to questions like “How will Sanders stop the BernieBros?” and away from substantive policy.

The BernieBros story showed how news can be manufactured in an age of Twitter punditry.


Trump won because of Russia. That's manufactured news.

Trump won because of fake news being shared on Facebook. That's also manufactured news.

The democrat machine chose Hillary to be its nominee, and the national media indirectly supported the scam primary process. That's real news. But since most of the national media were complicit with the scam, the issue was not investigated.

And now we're suppose to trust the national media with whatever crap they're publishing today.

Russian propaganda probably contains more truth than what the American media publishes.


More from the November 2016 Current Affairs article:

Thus there are real-world political consequences to this type of shoddy reporting; we at least know that it can filter into a presidential primary.

There’s a feedback loop between the media and political elite, and Twitter provides a convenient means of fabricating stories to further particular interests.


A December 2016 Current Affairs article

Every one of the three major candidates in this election (Trump, Clinton, and Sanders) was hounded by fake or exaggerated news stories.

Trump was accused of being a secret Russian agent. Clinton’s email scandal was blown out of all reasonable proportion.

And Bernie Sanders was hounded by malicious and unrepresentative stereotypes about “BernieBros.”

Yet none of these stories were from fringe blogs and conspiracy sites.

They were all produced by the mainstream press, which gave this nonsense primacy over stories about climate change, nuclear proliferation, Syria, health care, poverty, and every other conceivable issue of consequence.


Greenwald story from January 2016 - The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism

The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace.

It’s become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear.

Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself.

What this illustrates is that Clinton media operatives are campaigning for their candidate under the guise of journalism and social issue activism.

As is true for most campaign operatives, [journalists] have thrown all concern about truth and facts into the garbage can in exchange for saying anything that they perceive will help the Clinton campaign win.

... the pro-Clinton establishment media first created this narrative about the Sanders campaign, then seized on its being forced to respond to it — the narrative they created — as vindication that they were right all along.


Hilariously devilish in a Dr. Evil way.

The pro-Hillary media invented and nurtured a bogus story, forcing Sanders to apologize to a fairy tale, and then the media used the apology as proof that their fiction was real.

Those media hacks used the same damn template against Facebook after the election. The mainstream media invented and ballooned a story about how fake news shared on Facebook helped Trump win.

Initially, Zuckerberg scoffed at this myth, as he should have because he's intelligent.

But in November and December 2016, the media pounded Facebook, which caused Facebook to acquiesce by deciding to partner with fact-checking orgs.

In January 2017, Facebook pretended to care about journalism by announcing a new initiative called The Facebook Journalism Project.

In early March 2017, Facebook launched a tool that supposedly identifies fake news sources.

The irony is that these Facebook reactions toward fake news convince the media that their fake news is a real story even though a Stanford-NYU report [pdf file] released in January 2017 showed that fake news had no impact on the 2016 presidential election.

... the average American saw and remembered 0.92 pro-Trump fake news stories and 0.23 pro-Clinton fake news stories, with just over half of those who recalled seeing fake news stories believing them;

... for fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads.


It's not a story unless the media invents it.


Disclaimers:

  • Greenwald supported Bernie Sanders.
  • I voted for Bernie Sanders in the March 2016 primary.
  • I didn't vote in the November 2016 election.

posted by jr on Mar 10, 2017 at 01:29:22 am     #  

Should be required reading. Thanks.

posted by justread on Mar 10, 2017 at 06:34:43 am     #  

Great read JR. That had to take some time putting all that info together. Thanks. I was for Bernie also. Seemed like the only sincere
candidate.

posted by reggie on Mar 10, 2017 at 06:51:15 am     #  

Wow JR-Lots to digest. I appreciate the length and depth of this piece. I'd like to weigh in on a few comments.

  • The Reason(s) Hillary lost, in descending order. They ran a terrible campaign, she's a terrible candidate, she has a major unlike-ability problem that we've known since at least 2008, Trump had a truly original campaign and movement, James Comey has interesting timing (that last piece was merely the final nail). Russia did not have anything to do with her losing.
  • BernieBros-clarification. When I mentioned it earlier, I did not mean the alleged smear tactics. I meant, there are a lot of people that stayed home, or rejected Hillary, that had voted Bernie.
  • I think you're on the right track, in regards to journalists over papers. That said, those that give journalism room to breathe, are of vital importance. WaPo? I have a few article to check out tonight after work. I'm interested in tying those together. There has been quite a bit of top notch investigative journalism over there. Intercept is also good. Reading a range of sources is really the best way to try to digest and comprehend.
  • Greenwald-He's a tough one for me. I read him, I've followed him for a while. He has a very specific set of sensibilities I don't always agree with, but he's good at speaking truth to power. Matt Taibbi is quite good.
  • The DNC pulled the old boys, back room deals, with seemingly all women. Somewhat Ironic. Those shenanigans are totally unforgivable. It very well may have cost them election.
  • Trump won, because all of the old rules about the electorate have changed, and the none of the professionals saw it, until it already happened.
  • MY concern about Russia, has more to do with back door dealings happening before the election. As much about money as politics. I DO think that Russia believes they affected the outcome and that Trump may be beholden. That's certainly worth investigating. There's something fishy going on.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 10, 2017 at 08:13:30 am     #  

Mar 7, 2017 humorous polling data from Suffolk University with the USA Today.

PDF file

Mar 7, 2017 USA Today story Americans are unhappy with almost everyone in politics - except for Mike Pence

Mar 9, 2017 tweet

According to this poll, Trump is more popular than GOP, Democratic Party, Hillary, and the media. And Pence is more popular than Trump

Info from a Mar 7, 2017 tweet

Mar 7, 2017 Suffolk - USA Today Poll

             Fav  /  Unfav 
Pence      :  47  /  35% 
Trump      :  45  /  47 
GOP        :  37  /  48 
Media      :  37  /  50 
Dem Party  :  36  /  52 
Hillary    :  35  /  55 
Congress   :  26  /  52

posted by jr on Mar 10, 2017 at 11:10:56 am     #  

I saw that poll last night. It's about 8 points heavy on the Trump favorability. Big article about it in NY Daily News.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 10, 2017 at 11:42:01 am     #  

I don't care about Trump's numbers.

I find these Fav / Unfav numbers interesting:

  • Media : 37 / 50
  • Congress : 26 / 52


These three new websites launched in recent months, and they're worth checking out, at least occasionally.

posted by jr on Mar 10, 2017 at 12:45:01 pm     #