2 ms·

Probably not worth the trouble, as I predict this whole thread will soon be flagged to oblivion, but here goes. 1) I can't be bothered to look for references,

Probably not worth the trouble, as I predict this whole thread will soon be flagged to oblivion, but here goes. 1) I can't be bothered to look for references, but the NY Times has not failed to notice (and criticize) the fact that the Trump administration is staffed by quite a few people from Wall Street. A fair question is whether the NY Times would be as critical of a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration, if it made similar personnel choices. 2) The DNC has spent decades trying to avoid a repeat of 1972, when the "popular choice" of the party base (George McGovern) went down to a flaming defeat against Richard Nixon. The whole "super-delegate" thing was deliberately designed to make sure that party "elders" could influence the choice of nominee, so that the party base would not again nominate someone who was unelectable. This was non-democracy by design, not accidental corruption. You may not agree with the idea, but there was at least some logic behind it. 3) Russian social media influence seems to have been designed, at first, to exacerbate tensions in the US and subvert faith in US democracy. The decision to lean towards Trump seems to have been taken later on. And it could be argued that helping to build up antifa, and exaggerating its influence, would actually serve to increase pro-Trump feeling among his base.

wallace_f 9y ago
>1) I can't be bothered to look for references, but the NY Times has not failed to notice (and criticize) the fact that the Trump administration is staffed by quite a few people from Wall Street. A fair question is whether the NY Times would be as critical of a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration, if it made similar personnel choices. The NYTimes also covered the Dakota Pipeline protests and the DWS DNC scandal. CIA influence in domestic media has also been covered in mainstream media. But there's a difference between technically covering a topic somewhere and incessantly exposing an idea.

wallace_f 9y ago

>1) I can't be bothered to look for references, but the NY Times has not failed to notice (and criticize) the fact that the Trump administration is staffed by quite a few people from Wall Street. A fair question is whether the NY Times would be as critical of a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration, if it made similar personnel choices. The NYTimes also covered the Dakota Pipeline protests and the DWS DNC scandal. CIA influence in domestic media has also been covered in mainstream media. But there's a difference between technically covering a topic somewhere and incessantly exposing an idea.