4 ms·

The unbearable smugness of the press

21 points by shawndumas 10y ago

Lagged2Death 10y ago
Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic. The press I saw served mainly as a gigantic megaphone used to amplify a river of Trump bullshit 24/7. They did not call him out as a liar, not remotely to the degree that would have been appropriate. Trump controls something like ~500 businesses; what conflicts of interest might arise from him assuming the title of President? Why haven't I seen any news about that? But I know all about Clinton's personal email server. Which apparently resulted in no real breaches of security. Why do I know so much about that? We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession ... That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It's mockery to point out racism and sexism, now? What? The data after the fact does indeed support the "they're just fucking racists" interpretation. Now more than ever. The fact that they don't believe they are racists or that they don't understand that they are racists doesn't mean the "racist" diagnosis is wrong. The fact that calling someone a racist isn't nice doesn't mean racism should be tolerated or covered up. If you want journalists to approach Trump supporters with empathy, fine: go ahead and approach the racists with empathy. If "empathy" means "covering up racism with nicer words" then that's bullshit, that's not journalism anymore.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance Yes, let's label a group of people as racists for supporting a particular canidate for elected office. That's not hypocritical or anything...
  - Lagged2Death 10y ago
    Yes, let's label a group of people as racists for supporting a particular canidate for elected office. That's not hypocritical or anything... At other times, in other situations, I have been sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but I don't think it applies here. Let me quote something I wish I had written myself: When you're offered a chance to get something you want by throwing minorities to the wolves, and you take it because hey, no skin off my nose, that's racism. That's evil. It's low-key evil distinct from actively advocating slavery or painting swastikas on walls, but it's more than mere "apathy" to racial issues. To actively vote for a racist candidate with a racist platform is simply a racist act, regardless of the voter's reasons or intentions. That is, as far as I can see, merely factual. "Labeling" is ironically and conveniently a label itself. Sometimes "labeling" is a real concern. This isn't one of those times.
    - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
      This thanksgiving you should ask your family members who they voted for.
      - Lagged2Death 10y ago
        I am close with my family and I already know very well how pretty much everyone voted. Some of my family members are outspoken racists who were planning to vote for Trump. Some recent family gatherings have been explosive and memorable. What point were you attempting to communicate here?
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >When you're offered a chance to get something you want by throwing minorities to the wolves, and you take it because hey, no skin off my nose, that's racism. That's evil. It's low-key evil distinct from actively advocating slavery or painting swastikas on walls, but it's more than mere "apathy" to racial issues. What about apathy to foreign policy issues? Or is racism not racism when it concerns attacks on people abroad? Hillary has been consistently and vehemently pro-war and pro-"interventions" at every chance she got.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The press I saw served mainly as a gigantic megaphone used to amplify a river of Trump bullshit 24/7. We probably weren't watching the same media then. Because all the established press and TV channels rooted for Hillary or against Trump. Still, they couldn't silence his presence entirely, but then again, why should they? After all, it was what tons of people wanted and voted for.
nitwit005 10y ago
He presents no example of "doing it right", and in fact smugly dismisses the people who attempted to do what he's suggesting: > here’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. Seems like he's just adding more smugness.
- trendia 10y ago
  He can recognize the problem in others... he just needs to recognize when he's doing it himself. Baby steps.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

21 points by shawndumas 10y ago

Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic. The press I saw served mainly as a gigantic megaphone used to amplify a river of Trump bullshit 24/7. They did not call him out as a liar, not remotely to the degree that would have been appropriate. Trump controls something like ~500 businesses; what conflicts of interest might arise from him assuming the title of President? Why haven't I seen any news about that? But I know all about Clinton's personal email server. Which apparently resulted in no real breaches of security. Why do I know so much about that? We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession ... That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It's mockery to point out racism and sexism, now? What? The data after the fact does indeed support the "they're just fucking racists" interpretation. Now more than ever. The fact that they don't believe they are racists or that they don't understand that they are racists doesn't mean the "racist" diagnosis is wrong. The fact that calling someone a racist isn't nice doesn't mean racism should be tolerated or covered up. If you want journalists to approach Trump supporters with empathy, fine: go ahead and approach the racists with empathy. If "empathy" means "covering up racism with nicer words" then that's bullshit, that's not journalism anymore.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance Yes, let's label a group of people as racists for supporting a particular canidate for elected office. That's not hypocritical or anything...
- Lagged2Death 10y ago
  Yes, let's label a group of people as racists for supporting a particular canidate for elected office. That's not hypocritical or anything... At other times, in other situations, I have been sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but I don't think it applies here. Let me quote something I wish I had written myself: When you're offered a chance to get something you want by throwing minorities to the wolves, and you take it because hey, no skin off my nose, that's racism. That's evil. It's low-key evil distinct from actively advocating slavery or painting swastikas on walls, but it's more than mere "apathy" to racial issues. To actively vote for a racist candidate with a racist platform is simply a racist act, regardless of the voter's reasons or intentions. That is, as far as I can see, merely factual. "Labeling" is ironically and conveniently a label itself. Sometimes "labeling" is a real concern. This isn't one of those times.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    This thanksgiving you should ask your family members who they voted for.
    - Lagged2Death 10y ago
      I am close with my family and I already know very well how pretty much everyone voted. Some of my family members are outspoken racists who were planning to vote for Trump. Some recent family gatherings have been explosive and memorable. What point were you attempting to communicate here?
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >When you're offered a chance to get something you want by throwing minorities to the wolves, and you take it because hey, no skin off my nose, that's racism. That's evil. It's low-key evil distinct from actively advocating slavery or painting swastikas on walls, but it's more than mere "apathy" to racial issues. What about apathy to foreign policy issues? Or is racism not racism when it concerns attacks on people abroad? Hillary has been consistently and vehemently pro-war and pro-"interventions" at every chance she got.
coldtea 10y ago
>The press I saw served mainly as a gigantic megaphone used to amplify a river of Trump bullshit 24/7. We probably weren't watching the same media then. Because all the established press and TV channels rooted for Hillary or against Trump. Still, they couldn't silence his presence entirely, but then again, why should they? After all, it was what tons of people wanted and voted for.

nitwit005 10y ago

He presents no example of "doing it right", and in fact smugly dismisses the people who attempted to do what he's suggesting: > here’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. Seems like he's just adding more smugness.

trendia 10y ago
He can recognize the problem in others... he just needs to recognize when he's doing it himself. Baby steps.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]