This is a really, really good point.

And it was this mutual journey holding hands... You had some hosts who were right wing, not insane, and probably much more into being successful hosts with a cult-like audience than anything policy-related. These guys are more egomaniac than anything else. Somewhere along the way, likely after 9/11, they start mixing in more and more dog whistles and some overt racism, and their audience eats it up... and their ratings go up... and the insidious feedback loop you described drags them down to where they are today. And because of the feedback loop, and their lack of actual political/intellectual sophistication, I would imagine that a lot of these guys are high on their own supply of rage and fame.

Like I'd imagine if we went back to Fox News circa 2000 and watched a couple nights of prime time programming, we'd be like "That's not so bad at all..." Back then their prime-time lineup was:

8:00 The O'Reilly Factor
9:00 Hannity and Colmes
10:00 The Edge with Paula Zahn

Two years later they ditched Zahn and gave 10pm to Greta Van Susteren. Glenn Beck didn't arrive until 2009. Like, sure, "The No-Spin Zone" was always a spin zone, and Colmes was always there to be a punching bag for Hannity, but I'm guessing that it was nowhere near as propaganda-driven back then.

Keep in mind as well, with guys like Hannity and Beck, that neither has a college degree... which is not to **** all over people without that level of education, but to point out that these aren't guys who were like policy wonks who wanted to advance a political agenda with their media work, or people who wanted to be serious journalists... These guys could have just as easily ended up as Howard Stern style shock jocks... In fact, Beck's first job was as a morning shock jock. Hannity was pushing the edge in his first paid gig on AM radio by interviewing madams from Nevada brothels, and although it was to some degree a political show, he was banned from discussing religion and abortion in Huntsville, Alabama to start... So it can't have been THAT political.

From my radio background, I can tell you that the guys who naturally are best at talk radio are the ones who can push the edge, flirt with the line, and really feel the pulse of their audience and know when and where to push it... They know how to evoke those emotional responses, which plays right into the cycle that mosdef described.

What's particularly dangerous now with the likes of Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, is you have people who essentially have been targeting these jobs for a while... Like, they saw that early success and realized the niche they could carve out. They didn't back into the racism through that cycle, they saw the cycle happen - perhaps they bought in themselves - and they wanted to be a part of it.

I will always argue it doesn't really matter whether they're true believers/racists at heart, or simply trying to cash in... The end result of their content and its affect on society is the same. So whether their primary goal is to advance a racist policy agenda, or make millions of dollars hosting a racist tv show, they've been building for this for a while... which makes them far more dangerous.

So how do we fix it and restore some level of reasonable discourse between the left and right in America? Well there are two answers.

The first is the way in which it would have to be done. You'd first and foremost have to restore the Fairness Doctrine, which was killed by the FCC under Reagan in a 4-0 vote of FCC commissioners appointed by Reagan (3) and Nixon (1). To that point it had only been regulatory in nature, thus it could still be re-installed by Congress. In 1987, the House passed a legislative Fairness Doctrine 302-102, and the Senate passed it 59-31, but Reagan vetoed it. They tried again in 1991, but the effort died when Bush 41 threatened a veto. So you'd have to pass one and get it signed into law.

You'd have to make sure it applied to cable news, as well, and rule that - like over the air broadcasts - cable news used a public resource. This would be legally tricky, as you'd be arguing that cable/satellite/Internet infrastructure is a public resource. To really drive it home, I like what Will McAvoy said in The Newsroom - when the broadcasters cut a deal with Congress to be able to turn a profit on over-the-air broadcasts, they were required to do one hour of news programming a night. Nobody thought to force them to make it non-profit, which has led us to where we are.

The original over-the-air stations and any cable news station should be required to do one hour of non-profit news programming a night between 6pm and 11pm. The non-profit part is key, as it would remove a good chunk of the profit incentive (they still would want good ratings to lead into the next program). Now, on Fox, they might just unleash Tucker Carlson with no concerns of advertiser boycotts... But over time, the companies that want a good reputation will just do straight news broadcasts that the public can overall come to trust, restoring a huge problem in our democracy - the lack of a commonly accepted arbiter of truth.

The second answer is that it's never going to happen in this political climate, and probably never going to happen period. I'd even settle for creating a nightly one-hour program on PBS to be archived daily online for free, which would be run by a news director with at least 10 years of experience at the network level. They would be hired by a bipartisan committee made up of six Democrats and six Republicans (three each from each chamber), with a catch. The Democratic caucus in each chamber would pick the Republican members of the committee from that chamber, and vice versa. So essentially you'd be trying to get the 12 most moderate members of Congress. You'd require eight yay votes for the news director, and each news director would get a maximum of four years running the show. You could also require a majority of the committee to sign off on the hire for the lead anchor.

If the chances of the beefed up Fairness Doctrine coming back are 1%, the chances of the national non-partisan news happening are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.01%.

We desperately need a neutral, commonly accepted arbiter of fact and truth in this country... But I don't think we can even begin to get there until after Trumpism is defeated.

( twitter | raw text )

Trump physically looks like trash, like a ****ing King's Hawaiian roll. All that pancake creamsicle coloration can't hide that crepey skin, bloat and distension. Start bragging about your high mmHg you decaying cretin.

( twitter | raw text )

treason isn't fraud or you'd be in prison for that already it's colluding with a foreign gov't... oh right

I hope Trump doesn’t read this NY Post article about how easy it is for MS-13 members to get back into the US.

https://nypost.com/2019/04/05/how-de...k-into-the-us/

So immediately after meeting with a Jewish group he "Never Forget!"s about the investigation. His personal holocaust.

( twitter | raw text )

Apparently ****bag POTUS revved the crowd up first thing with some vitriol about how Ilhan Omar hates them. I guess he hopes next someone will actually try to kill her instead of just a legit threat. Here's the guy arrested yesterday:

“Do you work for the Muslim Brotherhood? Why are you working for her, she’s a ****ing terrorist. I’ll put a bullet in her ****ing skull,” Carlineo allegedly said.

"While questioned by FBI agents over the call late last month, Carlineo reportedly described himself as a patriot who loves President Trump and hates radical Muslims in public office. Investigators also reportedly found a shotgun and a .22-caliber rifle at his home. The arrest comes just a few weeks after Fox News host Jeanine Pirro suggested on-air that Omar’s wearing of a hijab might be “indicative” of loyalty to Sharia law, a claim which quickly sparked backlash and saw her show temporarily bumped from the air."

I know everyone has forgotten the guy who mailed pipe bombs to people on Trump's enemies list. I don't even know what to say, I guess I'll get some exercise instead of stewing about our unbelievable terrible and destructive "leadership."

IDK for sure if real or not but I'm going with real.


https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/...09041689468928

Come on man

Of course he's in decline. He's old and grossly unhealthy.

He's been doped up in the past for debates and speeches.

Praise the “blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us” people and a really stupid billionaire Jew will print your name on his Yakima.

Party of Trump has a big tent.

This requires a lot of patience. It takes a long time to die from this kind of deterioration.

The number one trait correlated with trump support is not racism. It’s absolute, measurable, stupidity.

And when you bring this up to republicans you don’t get outrage you get

Yeah. Kill that terrorist.

Nah. Lots of people who can read and write and do well on the SATs and IQ tests support Trump. White people in general support Trump. Men in general support Trump. Rich white men support Trump. Stupidity is a factor, but not THE factor. Racism, authoritarianism, sexism, being a selfish prick, and partisanship are all way bigger factors.

If anyone knows the answer to this, great let me know, else I'll do my own homework. But, I think it started with the Australians reporting that Papadopoulos told them that the Russians had the DNC's email. What I don't know is when the other 6 allies (Brits, Dutch, French, Estonians, 2 others) reported Trump contacts with Russians to the CIA. So, there is a ton of stuff:
* Aussies report Papadopoulos
* 6 other allies report Trump campaign Russian contacts
* Trump Tower meeting
* Comey fired, Trump yucks it up with the Russians in the Oval office the next day

Seems legit to me Mr. President

Good post.

I would point out though that there's already a nightly one-hour program on PBS that is archived daily online for free, and which is run by an executive producer who has 30 years of network news experience.

I know there's plenty of justifiable criticism of the NewsHour, but for the most part I think they try hard to fill the role of fair and balanced non-partisan news. They regularly provide a platform to conservative members of Congress and right-wing think tankers. I often have to put up with Matt ****ing Schlapp spewing his nonsense more or less unchallenged.

I think I've said it before but the nation might be saved if we could require all Americans to watch the first ~15 minutes of the NewsHour (aka the "News Summary") at least 3 times a week.

Jesus

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

I know that guy personally. He is a world class piece of ****, as evidenced by publicly available info re his personal life.