3 ms·

> There is no diversity in ownership nor opinion now. There is the one party... Is this referring to the "Republicans and Democrats are the same party" trope,

> There is no diversity in ownership nor opinion now. There is the one party... Is this referring to the "Republicans and Democrats are the same party" trope, or is there a different intended meaning here? You're comment indicates you think there are multiple parties. I'd assume you mean the Republicans and Democrats, but both of those parties are supported by various news outlets. So yeah, I don't think I understand what is trying to be conveyed here.

_-david-_ 4y ago
The poster is likely referring to the fact that 85% (or there about) of journalists are registered in one political party.
PaulHoule 4y ago
My take circa 2000 was the the Democrats and the Republicans had rather converged in their pursuit of "swing voters". I remember editing together a tape from a debate where Bush and Gore tried to outdo each other in bellicosity (support for the military) and then Gore says "IF IT'S A FAILING SCHOOL SHUT IT DOWN!" and I covered the jump cut with a smart bomb hitting a bunker in Iraq. I think people perceived Reagan was successful at solving the problems of the 1970s and I think Clinton basically picked up most of Reagan's approach to governing the same way that Tony Blair followed in the steps of Margaret Thatcher in the UK. The polarization was different back then. I remember George HW Bush getting on TV when Rodney King was beat by the LAPD and saying that he'd watched it on TV with his wife and he was shocked, whereas you'd expect Republicans today to say something like "it served him right". For that matter his son signed into law the expansion of Medicare benefits to include prescription drugs which was a huge new social program. It seemed in the Bush years the public was still not getting a clear choice on many issues, one of the things that alienated people from "the establishment" is how voices opposed to the 2nd Iraq War were excluded from respectable opinion. I would tell anyone who listened that the war would likely turn out the way that it did but nobody in power listened, despite very large protests against the war. With Kerry in 2004 the Democrats did not clearly distinguish themselves from Bush and his policies as Kerry had this strange ambiguous position between being a war hero and an anti-war organizer who would not come to a clear position on Iraq. I think though the next trend started w/ Newt Gingrich in the 1990s who tried to block Clinton at every turn (who maybe helped Clinton paradoxically because he could pursue a basically conservative agenda but have groups like the National Organization of Women support him in his philandering and have environmental groups not complain about him doing nothing because he was under attack from the other side) That kind of negative politics went into high gear in the Obama years and today it seems there is little sign of the swing voter. You certainly couldn't say that Donald Trump didn't clearly distinguish himself from Biden, which was not so clear in the 1992-2004 time frame.
naasking 4y ago
Remind me, which are the anti-war parties and mainstream anti-war outlets again?

_-david-_ 4y ago

The poster is likely referring to the fact that 85% (or there about) of journalists are registered in one political party.

PaulHoule 4y ago

My take circa 2000 was the the Democrats and the Republicans had rather converged in their pursuit of "swing voters". I remember editing together a tape from a debate where Bush and Gore tried to outdo each other in bellicosity (support for the military) and then Gore says "IF IT'S A FAILING SCHOOL SHUT IT DOWN!" and I covered the jump cut with a smart bomb hitting a bunker in Iraq. I think people perceived Reagan was successful at solving the problems of the 1970s and I think Clinton basically picked up most of Reagan's approach to governing the same way that Tony Blair followed in the steps of Margaret Thatcher in the UK. The polarization was different back then. I remember George HW Bush getting on TV when Rodney King was beat by the LAPD and saying that he'd watched it on TV with his wife and he was shocked, whereas you'd expect Republicans today to say something like "it served him right". For that matter his son signed into law the expansion of Medicare benefits to include prescription drugs which was a huge new social program. It seemed in the Bush years the public was still not getting a clear choice on many issues, one of the things that alienated people from "the establishment" is how voices opposed to the 2nd Iraq War were excluded from respectable opinion. I would tell anyone who listened that the war would likely turn out the way that it did but nobody in power listened, despite very large protests against the war. With Kerry in 2004 the Democrats did not clearly distinguish themselves from Bush and his policies as Kerry had this strange ambiguous position between being a war hero and an anti-war organizer who would not come to a clear position on Iraq. I think though the next trend started w/ Newt Gingrich in the 1990s who tried to block Clinton at every turn (who maybe helped Clinton paradoxically because he could pursue a basically conservative agenda but have groups like the National Organization of Women support him in his philandering and have environmental groups not complain about him doing nothing because he was under attack from the other side) That kind of negative politics went into high gear in the Obama years and today it seems there is little sign of the swing voter. You certainly couldn't say that Donald Trump didn't clearly distinguish himself from Biden, which was not so clear in the 1992-2004 time frame.

naasking 4y ago

Remind me, which are the anti-war parties and mainstream anti-war outlets again?