Putin's not paying minions for true stories about Jan 6th. (just sparkly embellished lies, laced with truth bits! About nothings other than the failed coup).
Propaganda first!
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19043 readers
729 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nah, Jan 6 2.0 is just around the corner. They're waiting for that.
How many papers are owned by left wing billionaires Alexa
Democrats have heard Republicans whining about the "liberal media" for so long, they've accepted it as fact.
The third estate is not inherently benevolent or even benign. It is not your friend.
The peasantry?
I think you want the fourth estate.
Oh, i was confused why he was condemning the higher clergy, though on second thought, fuck those guys.
You are correct. My mistake.
Your mistate
- The media covers whatever gets them paid.
- Trump figured out how to hack the media cycle. When the news gets spicy, he just makes even spicier news. (Real life "one simple trick!")
- Everyone is so fatigued by the endless chaos that they start to tune it out.
- The eye of sauron shifts and nobody cares about January 6 anymore, because that mofo is an actual contender to be elected yet again. That alone is more palpably terrifying news.
Holy crap, what a based media outlet.
- They actually have data to back up their claims
- They provided the methodology they used to conduct their investigation
- They (correctly) identified it as Clinton's server instead of Clinton's emails
- They're a not for profit
Media matters - I'll personally remember that name and you should to. Real journalism. Based.
They are great, and have been around for quite a while now. Stephen Colbert (O'Lielly used to rail against them all the time; and cons call them "hateful", lol):
I don’t think Stephen Colbert was being serious when he said that quote. Mind you, all the quote sites that cite him saying that do not provide the source. Based on his persona from The Colbert Report, I imagine this was part of a joke, especially given the names he called out.
Yes, he was totally doing that in character, if memory serves. Mocking the likes of Klannity and O'Lielly getting butthurt over the factual Media Matters.
I remember linking to that site in an exchange with someone I know, and they responded (this was over email) with "oh, Media Matters. Of course you'd rely on something even more liberal than the MSM!", or words to that effect. Not bothering to rely on the subject at hand, of course. It was just, oh, Media Matters, and noping out, LOL.
For qons, fact-checking qon nonsense and using their own words against them is like salt on a slug. It's weird how so many of the prominent ones now openly sneer and whine about being fact-checked! For years, the more low-info base would cry about sources, now people like bobo and empty g and "JD" "Vance" will whine about in in the moment. Not realizing it is not the flex they think it is to cry about not being able to brazenly lie without being called on it.
And... Trump may actually win this...
fook
Harris picked up a flagged campaign from Biden after he shit the bed in the first debate and made a big fanfare of diverging from the current administration. For a week or two, people got genuinely excited. They started talking about student loan forgiveness again. They started talking about Single Payer again. They started talking about changing the course on our sponsorship of genocide in Gaza and our brutal treatment of refugees on the southern border and our inability to hit climate goals. They started talking about reversing out the increasingly fascist SCOTUS and restoring civil rights to our police-state of a nation.
Then Harris began to campaign in earnest. She leaned more and more on the Techbros for fundraising. She brought more AIPAC lobbyists in as bundlers. She weedled and hedged on climate change, as guys like Eric Schmitt outright announced AI was more important than cutting carbon emissions. She began rolling out arch-conservatives from the Bush Era as her spokespeople and major sponsors. Jeff Flake was the featured speaker at the national convention. Dick and Liz Cheney started showing up at Harris campaign events. John fucking Negroponte endorsed her. Harris went on the view and outright stated she'd be in line with Biden, with the singular exception of including more Republicans in her cabinet.
What does anyone think this is doing to her enthusiasm among base voters? That critical block of Muslim refugees in the Midwest she needs to win in order to hold those states... how are they feeling right now? The college kids who had their campuses raided by police at the end of last semester, how excited are they feeling right now? Folks down in Florida who just got their state sliced in half by a hurricane, how excited are they to hear a candidate say we need more emissions-belching AI data centers?
We know Trump's ceiling from 2020. He pulled in 74M voters. He came within 40k votes across three swing states to beating Biden. And that was with a guy who was shoulder-to-shoulder with Bernie Sanders on election day.
Now Harris is playing footsy with the fucking Cheneys, Republicans so out of their element that they lost in Wyoming, as state that family practically owns wholesale. Absolutely clueless pack of fucking losers. If they cock this up, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Endorsed by Negroponte? When actual evil people endorse Harris, I don't know what to think. I am in despair for America.
Fun fact. Jan 6 is the the biggest criminal investigation in US history by sheer number of defendants. You'd never know from the way the news covers it.
News: "The little kerfuffle on Jan 6th. You probably never heard about it"
An investigation started under Trump, to seek out ANTIFA members who did it.... Only to eventually give up on that narrative when they remembered it was themselves all along, so now instead of prison sentences they are calling them by anything but criminals. You know, those pro military, pro police people... Campaigning under a person who shits on the military over and over, and supports the people who assualted the police on Jan 6.
Maybe because it's not as big of a story. J6 has been in the papers every other week since it occured.
It's the biggest story in America's political history since the civil war. Enemies of the nation struck at its heart and tried to kill it, and the lead traitor's head is still attached to his body.
LOL, not as big of a story?
to be clear, the media isn't the thing we should be mad at here, it's the government and the political system that has allowed this bullshit thus far.
Media outlets are never going to be "unbiased" it's impossible, as demonstrated by conservatives being stupid as of late surrounding any number of events, including the recent debate. HOWEVER, we can simply report things ourselves, perhaps we should be moving towards a highly decentralized and vetted news system, rather than a more monolithic approach. Something that actually informs people on the important details, rather than being a "trust me bro" reporting system.
OK, but these two things aren't the same. This indictment came out in August or 2023, then was thrown out almost a year later due to the immunity ruling, but the prosecutor immediately vowed to refile, which he did in late August, and now he's released a bunch of Grand Jury documents that flesh out the case he's been working on for 14 months.
It's damning stuff, but not shocking, given that this story has been developing for over a year. It's certainly not as shocking as the FBI director announcing that in investigation into a presidential candidate, which everyone thought had been concluded 2 months prior, has been reopened 11 days before an election.
The news media chases clicks. It's bullshit, but that's what happens when advertising revenue dictates the media's interests. Knowing that, it makes a lot of sense that the story, "Documents released regarding last months refiled Trump indictment," got less coverage than, "FBI director suddenly announced Clinton probe reopened! What are in the mysterious new emails?"
Let us not forget Clinton's cigar.
WHAAAAT? Are you implying that the liberal media is not interested in doing anything to save democracy? Even if it means they, as the liberal media, will be among the very first ones targeted?
This is my shocked face.
The only thing liberal about corporate media is how liberal they are being with the definition of "liberal" when it's applied to them as an adjective.
What? Are you saying that the liberal media's own "everybody is sayin'" cover about how, they, the liberal media, are so very, very liberal (the Second Coming of Marx, even) is nothing but a total and complete sham?
not to shit on you here, but the classical defintion of liberal is extremely broad and not specific at all.
Technically speaking, the classical western concept of liberalism is basically shortened to "live and let live" so.
Our media is almost exclusively owned by Republicans. Each and every one
As crazy as all of this is, what's even crazier is that the actual truth, which is the full unredacted truth of this, is probably orders of magnitude worse than what we as public citizens are aware of.
The fact that this is not disqualifying is insane to me.
We continue to find more drips of the truth that many of us expected all along each week, like Kavanaugh's obstructed FBI investigation for example.
History will not be kind to trump or his supporters and enablers. That is, if we're allowed to write the truth of history.
I'm sure no one here is on the fence about voting, but PLEASE don't be apathetic about it, even if you're in a solidly blue state. Vote like your life depends on it. It just may be that important.
btw if you're looking to have a more comprehensive coverage of jan 6th there are a couple of good resources out there.
If you're into the heavy reading, the jan 6th report is really comprehensive and detailed. (check this link for the document source.)
if you're more into long form run throughs (more of a podcast style) there's this and the accompanying second part of it these were originally part of a 6 hour long stream, which i do have archived, but i believe the archive is currently down.
if you prefer a more short form docu series type there's this though i haven't watched this one through yet so take it with a grain of salt lol.
TL;DR nearly 900 page report, two indictments (one was post immunity ruling) a 6 hour panel over the facts of the j6 insurrection, broken into two parts, and a (probably) comprehensive documentary covering the events as well.
edit: added and cleaned up links.
Good stuff! Thanks for adding
yeah np, i try to make people more educated where i can, or at least push them to knowing that you can educate yourself on this stuff given enough time.
It's better for society lol. Unfortunately it takes a shit ton of time though.
You guys it's almost like the media wants him back in office or something.
Endless daily headlines, stupid shit said hourly, think of all the coverage, all the outrage, all the clicks! Who needs democracy anyways if we've got ad revenue?
They sell what they think we want to buy. Nothing more and nothing less.
Fake news from July. Removed for misinformation.
Fact check here:
There are no records that any of the executives referred to in the post donated directly to Trump’s presidential campaigns.
Are there records that all of the executives referred to in the post donated to a PAC or a SuperPAC that funnels millions to trump?
No. There aren’t any PAC donation records because SCROTUS legalized dark money. Of course we could argue about it, OR just look at the editorial slants and take this obvious fact at face value. Or assume the opposite in the ironic attempt to fight misinformation.
In 2016 CBS Chairman Les Moonvees, before being removed for sexual harassment, said, “trump may not be good for America, but he’s great for CBS!” - and that was to a crowded room of employees and investors. Did he donate the maximum $2500 to trump as well? I say it’s a moot point.
OK, so what you're saying is that you know there's no evidence to back up your claims, but you're assuming they're true based on your opinion of these outlets editorial decisions, and you'd like your opinion to be treated as a fact. Did I get that right?
No, you did not get that right.
What I’m saying is, I’ll accept the fact-check that there is no record of them personally donating to the trump campaign directly, and that’s sufficient to remove the image.
HOWEVER, everyone needs to be very clear there are a myriad of ways the wealthy can “donate” to campaigns because of Citizens United, and that the media outlets in question have a long and verifiable history of not reporting damaging news or editorial slants against trump which in many ways is more valuable than $2500 in cash.
SUCH THAT the idea that these CEO’s are not “donating” to trump because they didn’t give the legally required name for a direct campaign donation is laughable. HA!
There aren’t any PAC donation records because SCROTUS legalized dark money. Of course we could argue about it, OR just look at the editorial slants and take this obvious fact at face value.
Maybe you should clarify what the, "obvious fact," was that we should take at face value. Because based on the context, it really sounds like you wanted us to accept your debunked infographic as fact.
It’s pretty clear. If not, I’m not sure what to say to clarify.
Media owners help trump. Much more than a personal cash donation would. Which is why, when the “debunking” states media owners don’t help (“donate to”) trump, it’s ironic.
By saying the infographic is “debunked”, the implication is that media owners are not supporting trump. And I say again - they could very well be giving millions, as Elmo Musk does, without being directly identified in an FEC filing. So, the “debunking” is itself “debunked” by simply pointing out political donations can be unknown.
To restate, so you can clip ‘n save:
- all the corporate news owners listed in the now-deleted infographic support trump
- voluntary support for trump could be considered “a donation” (of time, influence, other)
- to say that the above has been “debunked” because these multi-millionaires didn’t give their name as an individual political donor is (a) technically true and (b) very much beside the point that the heads of all major corporate news media in America are supporting trump in some fashion if not in multiple ways including financial donations.
So, pop quiz hotshot: is the infographic “misleading”?
By saying the infographic is “debunked”, the implication is that media owners are not supporting trump. And I say again - they could very well be giving millions, as Elmo Musk does, without being directly identified in an FEC filing. So, the “debunking” is itself “debunked” by simply pointing out political donations can be unknown.
OK, but by the logic you're using, you could accuse anyone of anything. I could make an infographic that says, "Kamala Harris was caught killing small animals as a child," and when someone says that never happened, I could just say, "Well, juvenile records are almost always sealed and expunged, and people who seek power are often have sociopathic tendencies, so this debunking is debunked, since it's an unknown." It's just using the adage, "yhe absence of proof isn't the proof of absence," as a justification to continue spreading a lie.
Indeed you could and then the onus is on you to show all the examples of Kamala doing things like killing small animals. Does she talk about it? Does she wear things that indicate it? If she was the CEO of a corporate news organization, does she oversee stories promoting it? (Or, more likely, minimizing argument against it?) If you have boatloads of that evidence, you might have a good argument.
Got nothing? Well, that’s a poor argument. Maybe there are “Jewish space lasers” and MTG has broken the story wide open, but in the absence of literally any other piece of relevant information, it’s a poor argument to make.
I have metaphorical boatloads of evidence that the corporate news kaisers are supporting trump. So much so that pretty much anyone on here knows a bunch of them already. So much so, it’s hardly worth mentioning because it’s omnipresent. There’s more supporting evidence coming out every day.
That addresses the “just making up stuff” part, but let me once again, for the third time now, point out that financial donations to a campaign can be made in many ways that are not as rigorously documented as personal donations. So many ways, in fact, that the absence of these CEO’s names on opensecrets.org doesn’t really answer the question.
But if you’re simply arguing that as far as words on the infographic go, A is not B, then I’ll give it to you. Change “donor” to “supporter” on that infographic and we can have this exact same conversation again with the exact same meaning and relevance.
Is the CEO that presides over news coverage that doesn’t continually mention trump’s - conviction for hundreds of millions in fraud, the court’s finding of rape, the bizarreness of his speech, and a hundred other things that throw the ludicrousness of his candidacy into high relief - does the CEO that presides over not presenting that information support trump?
Yes. Yes they do. Did they give the equivalent of two dollars to his campaign fund and make sure their name was recorded? No. Oh! Well! Debunked! These are all egregious lies!
If you understand the point of the demographic, you can acknowledge its factual inaccuracy and its greater truth. Right?
Hey, if you're ever wondering what people mean when they say, "Blue MAGA," it's this; 8 rambling paragraphs of conspiracy theories about media companies' CEOs, with no evidence or sources, to justify a debunked infographic. It's long-winded, "Fake News."
Wow you think calling out corporate news owners as trump supporters is a conspiracy theory?
My apologies for trying to be reasonable with an explanation.
Evidence is in all the headlines about the race; source is THEIR OWN COMPANIES ffs. You need someone to look at it for you too?
I actually did lookups for the CEOs of a couple of these on opensecrets.org and couldn't find any monetary donations for the current NYT CEO or CNN CEO. Doesn't mean they're not trying to get Trump elected, but it's not by donating to his campaign.
view more: next ›