5 ms·

It's not a defense, but it's not a distinction without a difference. If the problem is collusion on behalf of a particular ideology then the solution is differe

It's not a defense, but it's not a distinction without a difference. If the problem is collusion on behalf of a particular ideology then the solution is different than if it's a problem caused by current models for monetization of news media being driven by short term consumption habits and an attendant compulsion on the part of journalists to get something, anything, new before their peers do even if it's grade F horse shit and they had to sell out to get it. The rhetoric I was replying to implied that the politicians and the journalists are on the same team because they have the same goals. That's not the case. I think keeping that in mind is plenty useful.

pdx 10y ago
I think I can disprove your premise right here. Of course, as The Center for Public Integrity [1] recently pointed out, "journalists" aren't just making "in-kind" contributions to the Clinton campaign, they're donating real cash as well. In fact, according the their review of political contributions made by people working in various media outlets, 96% were found to go to Hillary while only 4% accrued to the benefit of the Trump campaign. [1] https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists...
- spaceheeder 10y ago
  I'm not stipulating any of my claims on the lack of lopsidedness in the editorial positions of the journalists in question. A Really Big Number doesn't change what they care about more: being on the same team as the Democrats, or their drip-feeds from campaigns.
r_smart 10y ago
They're not mutually exclusive (monetary and ideological motivations), and they're actually both true. Not all the time, not unceasingly, but both still present. If they were motivated purely by money, they'd all be promoting Trump. He has driven a shocking amount of traffic / wealth to all journalist outlets. Stories they write on him are massively more popular, and he's demonstrated he'll cut off access for their lying. So if it was just money, pussy grabbing would be a good thing.
- spaceheeder 10y ago
  If they thought that far ahead, they'd fall behind. They live from headline to headline. The fact that Trump is chum right before the election instead of Clinton is partially stochastic and depended far more on the immediate reception to the stories than anything else.

pdx 10y ago

I think I can disprove your premise right here. Of course, as The Center for Public Integrity [1] recently pointed out, "journalists" aren't just making "in-kind" contributions to the Clinton campaign, they're donating real cash as well. In fact, according the their review of political contributions made by people working in various media outlets, 96% were found to go to Hillary while only 4% accrued to the benefit of the Trump campaign. [1] https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists...

spaceheeder 10y ago
I'm not stipulating any of my claims on the lack of lopsidedness in the editorial positions of the journalists in question. A Really Big Number doesn't change what they care about more: being on the same team as the Democrats, or their drip-feeds from campaigns.

r_smart 10y ago

They're not mutually exclusive (monetary and ideological motivations), and they're actually both true. Not all the time, not unceasingly, but both still present. If they were motivated purely by money, they'd all be promoting Trump. He has driven a shocking amount of traffic / wealth to all journalist outlets. Stories they write on him are massively more popular, and he's demonstrated he'll cut off access for their lying. So if it was just money, pussy grabbing would be a good thing.

spaceheeder 10y ago
If they thought that far ahead, they'd fall behind. They live from headline to headline. The fact that Trump is chum right before the election instead of Clinton is partially stochastic and depended far more on the immediate reception to the stories than anything else.