Matt Taibbi's latest column hits the nail on the head.

[atlkvb]

MAGA and Trump are certainly reaping what they have sowed.....

"have sown"...past tense of a verb with a present perfect modifier ends in a consonant not with "ed".
(6th grade basic grammar)

one thing I can promise you, I am a better man, a more successful man, a more respected and intelligent man than you can ever hope to be

except when it comes to basic sentence structure.

 

[atlkvb]

typical uneducated, dirty MAGA.....threatening murder like the other traitors.....

You referring to anyone on this forum as "uneducated" is either demonstrable evidence of your seriously delusional mental state, or a complete lack of awareness of your own brilliantly illuminated revelations of educational deficiencies.

Either way stop trying to fool yourself since none of us suffer from your self induced myopia.

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

Let's dissect this erudite, grandiloquent, aristocratic, ungrammatical soliloquy of extemporaneous thought disguised as intelligence shall we?


Of course this applies to anyone on this board posting to anyone else since none of us can "see" who we post with and unless we have established personal relationships with the posters we are communicating, we are all essentially 'anonymous' to one another. So what was the point in making this claim? Exclusivity here is not only NOT established, it isn't needed.


This is not a complete sentence. Following the initial declaratory statement which established the subject, this sentence lacks second reference to the first subject, and is without a proper noun delineating its subject of first reference. Poor grammar even a third grader should avoid. It also lacks a possessive ' for the proper noun (other) mentioned as a second reference to the primary subject.


This is laughably amusing given the obvious grammatical and sentence structure deficiencies identified in the second reference of the initially stated subject matter above.


Again, this display of rudimentary invective only amplifies the dearth of vocabularic mastery said subject exemplifies through this pedestrian attempt demonstrating superior linguistic intellect.


This is an incongruity. Since a "promise" was neither requested nor required from the poster this statement is superfluous. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible for the OP to validate this promise since the poster has no objective alternatives with which to properly demonstrate nor authenticate the objective qualities offered as proof of his superior capabilities. It is either a fabrication of the poster's imagination, or a gross distortion of quantifiable reality.


Once again, the incongruity of this statement is obvious and exists in direct contradiction of the OP's original assertion: "I don’t know you, I don’t know what you look like or anything about you". Here the poster admits to his lack of any tangible knowledge about the object of his derision, yet here he also insists despite that lack of vital information which invariably would include the subject's spouse, she can validate his specious yet unproven claims of both his physical as well as mental acuity over her known spouse? This obviously is not only a prevarication, but delusional hyperbole.


This statement on its face is both disingenuous as well as inaccurate. The OP admits to knowing "nothing" about the particulars of the target of his ridicule. Yet, here he assumes not only the target's political affiliations (MAGA), but he uses a mere campaign slogan to denigrate the subject's chosen place of domicile as if "making America great" does not apply to the geographical location where the target ostensibly resides. Additionally, the OP's Religious devotions have not been previously established, so thanking (g)od carries no Theological significance germane to the existing subject matter the OP is attempting to utilize as an allegory supporting his false appreciation for the target's preferred choice of residence, which by the OP's own admission...he has no definitive knowledge of. The Statement totally contradicts the assertions made by the OP in the opening sentence, thereby making the entire diatribe essentially pointless.


Once again the point of this backhanded reply is lost on the objective reader. Who is suggesting the target is "hiding"? For what purpose? From whom? It makes no sense either in context, or extrapolating some alternative supposition the OP was attempting to correlate in this disjointed diatribe.


Let this glittering example of eloquence enunciated as prose serve as the crowning jewel of accomplishment revealing the OP's "superior" linguistic algorithm of mellifluous colloquial English disguised as profanity.


The irony of this statement in light of the demonstrated derogatory vernacular in the above example is not lost on even the most densely illiterate reader.

So there you have it. A total analysis as well as demonstration of a completely useless blow hard posing as a sophisticated intellect to be revered, admired, and even emulated by all.

It ain't braggin' if 'you can do it.

Uncle Tom guts the sheeple in front of the entire world.......you used words he will never figure out in 100 years.....well done you damn trouble maker

Oooooh "tough guy" talk

I ain't never met no Grandpa who couldn't easily take me.

Ya don't say?

I know one grandpa who could take care of things rather quickly

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

and he still considered you his grandson??

you have an alligator mouth and a hummingbird ass.....esad

 

[roadtrasheer]

I pay $5 per month to get all of Matt's content. You can sign up on his website for free to get some of it for free. I copied and pasted his latest in full below but I don't consider it to be stealing from him because it's like an ad for him because I'm telling you he's good and I'm not giving it all to you for free but just the occasional column. He says we need a new media system and he's right. I hope this copies and pastes well.



We Need a New Media System
If you sell culture war all day, don’t be surprised by the real-world consequences

Matt Taibbi

24 min ago

70

40

The moment a group of people stormed the Capitol building last Wednesday, news companies began the process of sorting and commoditizing information that long ago became standard in American media.

Media firms work backward. They first ask, “How does our target demographic want to understand what’s just unfolded?” Then they pick both the words and the facts they want to emphasize.

It’s why Fox News uses the term, “Pro-Trump protesters,” while New York and The Atlantic use “Insurrectionists.” It’s why conservative media today is stressing how Apple, Google, and Amazon shut down the “Free Speech” platform Parler over the weekend, while mainstream outlets are emphasizing a new round of potentially armed protests reportedly planned for January 19th or 20th.

What happened last Wednesday was the apotheosis of the Hate Inc. era, when this audience-first model became the primary means of communicating facts to the population. For a hundred reasons dating back to the mid-eighties, from the advent of the Internet to the development of the 24-hour news cycle to the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the Fox-led discovery that news can be sold as character-driven, episodic TV in the manner of soap operas, the concept of a “Just the facts” newscast designed to be consumed by everyone died out.

News companies now clean world events like whalers, using every part of the animal, funneling different facts to different consumers based upon calculations about what will bring back the biggest engagement kick. The Migrant Caravan? Fox slices off comments from a Homeland Security official describing most of the border-crossers as single adults coming for “economic reasons.” The New York Times counters by running a story about how the caravan was deployed as a political issue by a Trump White House staring at poor results in midterm elections.

Repeat this info-sifting process a few billion times and this is how we became, as none other than Mitch McConnell put it last week, a country:

The flaw in the system is that even the biggest news companies now operate under the assumption that at least half their potential audience isn’t listening. This leads to all sorts of problems, and the fact that the easiest way to keep your own demographic is to feed it negative stories about others is only the most obvious. On all sides, we now lean into inflammatory caricatures, because the financial incentives encourage it.

Everyone monetized Trump. The Fox wing surrendered to the Trump phenomenon from the start, abandoning its supposed fealty to “family values” from the Megyn Kelly incident on. Without a thought, Rupert Murdoch sacrificed the paper-thin veneer of pseudo-respectability Fox had always maintained up to a point (that point being the moment advertisers started to bail in horror, as they did with Glenn Beck). He reinvented Fox as a platform for Trump’s conspiratorial brand of cartoon populism, rather than let some more-Fox-than-Fox imitator like OAN sell the ads to Trump’s voters for four years.

In between its titillating quasi-porn headlines (“Lesbian Prison Gangs Waiting To Get Hands on Lindsay Lohan, Inmate Says” is one from years ago that stuck in my mind), Fox’s business model has long been based on scaring the crap out of aging Silent Majority viewers with a parade of anything-but-the-truth explanations for America’s decline. It villainized immigrants, Muslims, the new Black Panthers, environmentalists — anyone but ADM, Wal-Mart, Countrywide, JP Morgan Chase, and other sponsors of Fortress America. Donald Trump was one of the people who got hooked on Fox’s narrative.

The rival media ecosystem chose cash over truth also. It could have responded to the last election by looking harder at the tensions they didn’t see coming in Trump’s America, which might have meant a more intense examination of the problems that gave Trump his opening: the jobs that never came back after bankers and retailers decided to move them to unfree labor zones in places like China, the severe debt and addiction crises, the ridiculous contradiction of an expanding international military garrison manned by a population fast losing belief in the mission, etc., etc.

Instead, outlets like CNN and MSNBC took a Fox-like approach, downplaying issues in favor of shoving Trump’s agitating personality in the faces of audiences over and over, to the point where many people could no longer think about anything else. To juice ratings, the Trump story — which didn’t need the slightest exaggeration to be fantastic — was more or less constantly distorted.

Trump began to be described as a cause of America’s problems, rather than a symptom, and his followers, every last one, were demonized right along with him, in caricatures that tickled the urbane audiences of channels like CNN but made conservatives want to reach for something sharp. This technique was borrowed from Fox, which learned in the Bush years that you could boost ratings by selling audiences on the idea that their liberal neighbors were terrorist traitors. Such messaging worked better by far than bashing al-Qaeda, because this enemy was closer, making the hate more real.

I came into the news business convinced that the traditional “objective” style of reporting was boring, deceptive, and deserving of mockery. I used to laugh at the parade of “above the fray” columnists and stone-dull house editorials that took no position on anything and always ended, “Only one thing’s for sure: time will tell.” As a teenager I was struck by a passage in Tim Crouse’s book about the 1972 presidential campaign, The Boys in the Bus, describing the work of Hunter Thompson:

What Rolling Stone did in giving a political reporter the freedom to write about the banalities of the system was revolutionary at the time. They also allowed their writer to be a sides-taker and a rooter, which seemed natural and appropriate because biases end up in media anyway. They were just hidden in the traditional dull “objective” format.

The problem is that the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction of politicized hot-taking that reporters now lack freedom in the opposite direction, i.e. the freedom to mitigate.

If you work in conservative media, you probably felt tremendous pressure all November to stay away from information suggesting Trump lost the election. If you work in the other ecosystem, you probably feel right now that even suggesting what happened last Wednesday was not a coup in the literal sense of the word (e.g. an attempt at seizing power with an actual chance of success) not only wouldn’t clear an editor, but might make you suspect in the eyes of co-workers, a potentially job-imperiling problem in this environment.

We need a new media channel, the press version of a third party, where those financial pressures to maintain audience are absent. Ideally, it would:

• not be aligned with either Democrats or Republicans;
• employ a Fairness Doctrine-inspired approach that discourages groupthink and requires at least occasional explorations of alternative points of view;
• embrace a utilitarian mission stressing credibility over ratings, including operating on a distribution model that as much as possible doesn’t depend upon the indulgence of Apple, Google, and Amazon.

Innovations like Substack are great for opinionated individual voices like me, but what’s desperately needed is an institutional reporting mechanism that has credibility with the whole population. That means a channel that sees its mission as something separate from politics, or at least as separate from politics as possible.

The media used to derive its institutional power from this perception of separateness. Politicians feared investigation by the news media precisely because they knew audiences perceived them as neutral arbiters.

Now there are no major commercial outlets not firmly associated with one or the other political party. Criticism of Republicans is as baked into New York Times coverage as the lambasting of Democrats is at Fox, and politicians don’t fear them as much because they know their constituents do not consider rival media sources credible. Probably, they don’t even read them. Echo chambers have limited utility in changing minds.

Media companies need to get out of the audience-stroking business, and by extension the politics business. They’d then be more likely to be believed when making pronouncements about elections or masks or anything else, for that matter. Creating that kind of outlet also has a much better shot of restoring sanity to the country than the current strategy, which seems based on stamping out access to “wrong” information.

What we’ve been watching for four years, and what we saw explode last week, is a paradox: a political and informational system that profits from division and conflict, and uses a factory-style process to stimulate it, but professes shock and horror when real conflict happens. It’s time to admit this is a failed system. You can’t sell hatred and seriously expect it to end.

The media is a sick group of individuals.
I recently watched the movie sully & paid attention to the real time local news reporters during the crisis, they knew at the time of reporting that there was minimal death but kept the "death toll " narrative alive until they couldn't hide the truth any longer. I put 90% of all news reporters in the same category as politicians, lawyers, salespeople & preachers, in no particular order. I trust and have more respect for a good ol fashion saw dust on the floor whore than people of those professions....
& after this past year doctors are starting to line up in the snake category for me ..

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The media is a sick group of individuals.
I recently watched the movie sully & paid attention to the real time local news reporters during the crisis, they knew at the time of reporting that there was minimal death but kept the "death toll " narrative alive until they couldn't hide the truth any longer. I put 90% of all news reporters in the same category as politicians, lawyers, salespeople & preachers, in no particular order. I trust and have more respect for a good ol fashion saw dust on the floor whore than people of those professions....
& after this past year doctors are starting to line up in the snake category for me ..

Hospital administrators, not doctors.

 

[atlkvb]

Koi

Uncle Tom guts the sheeple in front of the entire world.......you used words he will never figure out in 100 years.....well done you damn trouble maker

I know one grandpa who could take care of things rather quickly

My Grandfather would Pray for salvation of his lost Soul and my analysis of his educational hubris is probably beneath his elevated delusions of self awareness.

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

Koi


My Grandfather would Pray for salvation of his lost Soul and my analysis of his educational hubris is probably beneath his elevated delusions of self awareness.

mine would have sent him "there" and then prayed for his soul 😱

 

[dedhoops24]

mine would have sent him "there" and then prayed for his soul 😱

Nah.....you obviously come from a family of traitors, I’m sure your Logan kin fought for the Confederates.....nothing has changed......sedition runs through your veins.....

 

[dave]

Nah.....you obviously come from a family of traitors, I’m sure your Logan kin fought for the Confederates.....nothing has changed......sedition runs through your veins.....

You must come from a family of ridiculous hypcrites.

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

Nah.....you obviously come from a family of traitors, I’m sure your Logan kin fought for the Confederates.....nothing has changed......sedition runs through your veins.....

wrong again moron.......dumbass runs through your veins.....that and cowardice

 

[wvu2007]

Get your fat ugly wife back into your beat up truck and go count signs and Trump flags again, you’re still behind.......

At least he has a real wife and not a scammer from the Dominican pretending lol

 

[dave]

At least he has a real wife and not a scammer from the Dominican pretending lol

Thats not his wife. She answers the calls when old people fall for the SS denied scam.

 

[atlkvb]

Thats not his wife. She answers the calls when old people fall for the SS denied scam.

I'm actually to the point now Dave where I don't believe anything anyone on the Left says. They all do nothing but lie, lie, lie. They don't even believe their own lies, which is why you never see any of them defending their positions. They defend their lies, they run from the Truth.

 

[NYC_Eer]

I pay $5 per month to get all of Matt's content. You can sign up on his website for free to get some of it for free. I copied and pasted his latest in full below but I don't consider it to be stealing from him because it's like an ad for him because I'm telling you he's good and I'm not giving it all to you for free but just the occasional column. He says we need a new media system and he's right. I hope this copies and pastes well.



We Need a New Media System
If you sell culture war all day, don’t be surprised by the real-world consequences

Matt Taibbi

24 min ago

70

40

The moment a group of people stormed the Capitol building last Wednesday, news companies began the process of sorting and commoditizing information that long ago became standard in American media.

Media firms work backward. They first ask, “How does our target demographic want to understand what’s just unfolded?” Then they pick both the words and the facts they want to emphasize.

It’s why Fox News uses the term, “Pro-Trump protesters,” while New York and The Atlantic use “Insurrectionists.” It’s why conservative media today is stressing how Apple, Google, and Amazon shut down the “Free Speech” platform Parler over the weekend, while mainstream outlets are emphasizing a new round of potentially armed protests reportedly planned for January 19th or 20th.

What happened last Wednesday was the apotheosis of the Hate Inc. era, when this audience-first model became the primary means of communicating facts to the population. For a hundred reasons dating back to the mid-eighties, from the advent of the Internet to the development of the 24-hour news cycle to the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the Fox-led discovery that news can be sold as character-driven, episodic TV in the manner of soap operas, the concept of a “Just the facts” newscast designed to be consumed by everyone died out.

News companies now clean world events like whalers, using every part of the animal, funneling different facts to different consumers based upon calculations about what will bring back the biggest engagement kick. The Migrant Caravan? Fox slices off comments from a Homeland Security official describing most of the border-crossers as single adults coming for “economic reasons.” The New York Times counters by running a story about how the caravan was deployed as a political issue by a Trump White House staring at poor results in midterm elections.

Repeat this info-sifting process a few billion times and this is how we became, as none other than Mitch McConnell put it last week, a country:

The flaw in the system is that even the biggest news companies now operate under the assumption that at least half their potential audience isn’t listening. This leads to all sorts of problems, and the fact that the easiest way to keep your own demographic is to feed it negative stories about others is only the most obvious. On all sides, we now lean into inflammatory caricatures, because the financial incentives encourage it.

Everyone monetized Trump. The Fox wing surrendered to the Trump phenomenon from the start, abandoning its supposed fealty to “family values” from the Megyn Kelly incident on. Without a thought, Rupert Murdoch sacrificed the paper-thin veneer of pseudo-respectability Fox had always maintained up to a point (that point being the moment advertisers started to bail in horror, as they did with Glenn Beck). He reinvented Fox as a platform for Trump’s conspiratorial brand of cartoon populism, rather than let some more-Fox-than-Fox imitator like OAN sell the ads to Trump’s voters for four years.

In between its titillating quasi-porn headlines (“Lesbian Prison Gangs Waiting To Get Hands on Lindsay Lohan, Inmate Says” is one from years ago that stuck in my mind), Fox’s business model has long been based on scaring the crap out of aging Silent Majority viewers with a parade of anything-but-the-truth explanations for America’s decline. It villainized immigrants, Muslims, the new Black Panthers, environmentalists — anyone but ADM, Wal-Mart, Countrywide, JP Morgan Chase, and other sponsors of Fortress America. Donald Trump was one of the people who got hooked on Fox’s narrative.

The rival media ecosystem chose cash over truth also. It could have responded to the last election by looking harder at the tensions they didn’t see coming in Trump’s America, which might have meant a more intense examination of the problems that gave Trump his opening: the jobs that never came back after bankers and retailers decided to move them to unfree labor zones in places like China, the severe debt and addiction crises, the ridiculous contradiction of an expanding international military garrison manned by a population fast losing belief in the mission, etc., etc.

Instead, outlets like CNN and MSNBC took a Fox-like approach, downplaying issues in favor of shoving Trump’s agitating personality in the faces of audiences over and over, to the point where many people could no longer think about anything else. To juice ratings, the Trump story — which didn’t need the slightest exaggeration to be fantastic — was more or less constantly distorted.

Trump began to be described as a cause of America’s problems, rather than a symptom, and his followers, every last one, were demonized right along with him, in caricatures that tickled the urbane audiences of channels like CNN but made conservatives want to reach for something sharp. This technique was borrowed from Fox, which learned in the Bush years that you could boost ratings by selling audiences on the idea that their liberal neighbors were terrorist traitors. Such messaging worked better by far than bashing al-Qaeda, because this enemy was closer, making the hate more real.

I came into the news business convinced that the traditional “objective” style of reporting was boring, deceptive, and deserving of mockery. I used to laugh at the parade of “above the fray” columnists and stone-dull house editorials that took no position on anything and always ended, “Only one thing’s for sure: time will tell.” As a teenager I was struck by a passage in Tim Crouse’s book about the 1972 presidential campaign, The Boys in the Bus, describing the work of Hunter Thompson:

What Rolling Stone did in giving a political reporter the freedom to write about the banalities of the system was revolutionary at the time. They also allowed their writer to be a sides-taker and a rooter, which seemed natural and appropriate because biases end up in media anyway. They were just hidden in the traditional dull “objective” format.

The problem is that the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction of politicized hot-taking that reporters now lack freedom in the opposite direction, i.e. the freedom to mitigate.

If you work in conservative media, you probably felt tremendous pressure all November to stay away from information suggesting Trump lost the election. If you work in the other ecosystem, you probably feel right now that even suggesting what happened last Wednesday was not a coup in the literal sense of the word (e.g. an attempt at seizing power with an actual chance of success) not only wouldn’t clear an editor, but might make you suspect in the eyes of co-workers, a potentially job-imperiling problem in this environment.

We need a new media channel, the press version of a third party, where those financial pressures to maintain audience are absent. Ideally, it would:

• not be aligned with either Democrats or Republicans;
• employ a Fairness Doctrine-inspired approach that discourages groupthink and requires at least occasional explorations of alternative points of view;
• embrace a utilitarian mission stressing credibility over ratings, including operating on a distribution model that as much as possible doesn’t depend upon the indulgence of Apple, Google, and Amazon.

Innovations like Substack are great for opinionated individual voices like me, but what’s desperately needed is an institutional reporting mechanism that has credibility with the whole population. That means a channel that sees its mission as something separate from politics, or at least as separate from politics as possible.

The media used to derive its institutional power from this perception of separateness. Politicians feared investigation by the news media precisely because they knew audiences perceived them as neutral arbiters.

Now there are no major commercial outlets not firmly associated with one or the other political party. Criticism of Republicans is as baked into New York Times coverage as the lambasting of Democrats is at Fox, and politicians don’t fear them as much because they know their constituents do not consider rival media sources credible. Probably, they don’t even read them. Echo chambers have limited utility in changing minds.

Media companies need to get out of the audience-stroking business, and by extension the politics business. They’d then be more likely to be believed when making pronouncements about elections or masks or anything else, for that matter. Creating that kind of outlet also has a much better shot of restoring sanity to the country than the current strategy, which seems based on stamping out access to “wrong” information.

What we’ve been watching for four years, and what we saw explode last week, is a paradox: a political and informational system that profits from division and conflict, and uses a factory-style process to stimulate it, but professes shock and horror when real conflict happens. It’s time to admit this is a failed system. You can’t sell hatred and seriously expect it to end.

He’s on Bill Maher quite often. Always good.

 

[Op2]

Here's a long video of Taibbi which probably no one will want to watch/listen to because it's long but I thought I'd post it just in case. He explains in depth about how nowadays the media have a financial incentive to target niche audiences and tell them what they want to hear and whip of hatred of the other side and as a result people can't have fruitful discussions about politics because they can't even agree on the same basic facts.

 

[NYC_Eer]

Here's a long video of Taibbi which probably no one will want to watch/listen to because it's long but I thought I'd post it just in case. He explains in depth about how nowadays the media have a financial incentive to target niche audiences and tell them what they want to hear and whip of hatred of the other side and as a result people can't have fruitful discussions about politics because they can't even agree on the same basic facts.

View embedded media

I’m assuming you’ve seen The Social Dilemma. They cover a lot of the same ground in essence.

 

[Op2]

I’m assuming you’ve seen The Social Dilemma. They cover a lot of the same ground in essence.

I've seen the social dilemma but as I recall that was more about the tricks social media uses to get us addicted rather than the news media targeting small audiences and getting them addicted to a narrow point of view.

 

[NYC_Eer]

I've seen the social dilemma but as I recall that was more about the tricks social media uses to get us addicted rather than the news media targeting small audiences and getting them addicted to a narrow point of view.

It focused more on technology rather than the media angle, but covered the ground of tailored information being fed to fragmented audiences that exacerbated the divisiveness. And how it’s leading to a post-truth world where people can’t agree on a basic set of unimpeachable facts.

 

[wvu2007]

MAGA and Trump are certainly reaping what they have sowed.....

Lol.

 

[atlkvb]

It focused more on technology rather than the media angle, but covered the ground of tailored information being fed to fragmented audiences that exacerbated the divisiveness. And how it’s leading to a post-truth world where people can’t agree on a basic set of unimpeachable facts.

Yeah, like "mules" illegally trafficking election ballots.

 

[Shirley Knott]

Not what we’re discussing. Hijack another thread.

Once again you don
t like the facts don't report on the facts..

 

[Shirley Knott]

and he still considered you his grandson??

Nah but he knew your grandpa...

 

[atlkvb]

These thread revivals are always just so funny. Where the Hell is deadhoops anyway? He had the MAGA movement's political epitaph written and filed for the ash heap of history following the stolen election. Guess he doesn't watch any of Trump's recent rallies so he's probably unaware Trump endorsed candidates are 55-0 in GOP primaries to date?

I'm too tough to worry about Trump, that's why I ran away.

 

[atlkvb]

Once again you don
t like the facts don't report on the facts..

Show or present an uncomfortable fact to @NYC_Eer ...and all you'll see is this in response