lol it literally ends with a not so subtle “women aren’t having enough babies” angle. Surprised he didn’t mention kitchen and being barefoot.
2 Likes
In other words, young women’s intelligence and social awareness has continued to progress, and young men are regressing in these areas. But it’s the women’s fault for not making the regressive young men feel good about themselves.
1 Like
Oh god, this is exhausting. Trump just says whatever pops into his head on abortion and it works every time. The media tie themselves in knots trying to parse out what he said, it doesn’t matter, he doesn’t have any principled views on abortion.
Even worse, he is 100% guaranteed to sign whatever lunacy the GOP Congress sends his way. The press just running in circles providing cover for him is the most frustrating and enraging part of this whole stupid timeline for me.
I’m sorry but the reason why the media is in the tank for Trump is as pathetic as it is obvious: he made them a lot of money.
One of the most annoying things about late state capitalism is that our government policy is to let people literally piss in the metaphorical community reality pool for profit… and it isn’t even all that much profit. I did a valuation on Fox News in 2019 because I was curious exactly how much money there was in ruining the world, and the enterprise value on my scale was ~20b and only 34b if you gave them a pretty crazy price to earnings ratio of 20 and gave them full dollar for dollar credit on balance sheet side, which I never do.
So we’re fine with them pissing in the ears of 20-30% of the voters 24/7 poisoning their minds with gold bug ads and right wing conspiracy nonsense for a business that is worth… fuck it 40 billion dollars. Not 40 billion dollars a year in profit the business itself is worth high side 40 billion total.
It’s happening because politicians want it to happen. I never expected to have my belief in free speech significantly challenged, but man have the internet and fox news challenged that. It turns out letting people lie with total impunity about anything they want with massive platforms amplifying their reach to literally hundreds of millions of people is… actually a really big problem and just saying ‘but free speech’ absolutely isn’t an answer to it. Whatever this is has to be illegal for us to have a functional society.
NYT stock price:
Trump takes office: $13
Trump leaves office: $49
Now: $43.50
A few things.
-
I feel like the most obvious reading of “They were liberal public school teachers” is that these were liberal teachers at a public school. The story makes clear that its subjects are conservatives who used to be public school teachers at “liberal” schools (and were maybe liberal a long time ago but not since the Trump era). Those are two very different stories that the headline is conflating here!
-
Very early on: “Kali’s online job marked a sharp departure from the years she and her husband, Joshua Fontanilla, spent teaching middle- and high school English in California’s deep-blue Salinas district.” The idea of a “deep-blue district” in California doing woke indoctrination to kids gives you a certain idea in your head. I promise you Salinas is not that idea:
- 80% Hispanic
- main industry is agriculture
- median household income of $68k
-
Googling “kali fontanilla salinas” to see what school she taught at, you’ll never fucking guess:
Great job, WaPo, presenting this conservative activist as if she’s a regular everywoman. To the author’s credit I think this is the kind of story that’s kinda subtly making fun of its subjects the whole time, like
Joshua then began combing through the “American Dream” unit of the English curriculum, researching the politics of every author. He concluded that too many (at least 12 of 19) were “left-leaning,” including — as Joshua saw it — “leftist” historian Studs Terkel, “socialist” poet Langston Hughes and “Dem” Walt Whitman.
…or the fact that she became disillusioned with Obama because he signed a bill cutting food stamps she relied on (the story doesn’t mention Dems negotiated the cut down to a much smaller figure than Republicans wanted at the time). But reading through the lines like that is egghead shit and there’s zero compelling reason why these conservative freaks’ story is remotely interesting and deserves to be highlighted in a national paper
2 Likes
That headline is horrible. Any reasonable reader would be expecting a story of transformation.
2 Likes
That’s just plain awful. Jesus.
1 Like
For most of 2016, many NPR journalists warned newsroom leadership that we weren’t taking Trump and the possibility of his winning seriously enough. But top editors dismissed the chance of a Trump win repeatedly, declaring that Americans would be revolted by this or that outrageous thing he’d said or done. I remember one editorial meeting where a white newsroom leader said that Trump’s strong poll numbers wouldn’t survive his being exposed as a racist. When a journalist of color asked whether his numbers could be rising because of his racism, the comment was met with silence. In another meeting, I and a couple of other editorial leaders were encouraged to make sure that any coverage of a Trump lie was matched with a story about a lie from Hillary Clinton. Another colleague asked what to do if one candidate just lied more than the other. Another silent response.
1 Like
You’ll never guess where this criticism came from:
At this point the New York TImes reports news according to whatever Christopher Rufo wants them to. He gets to create the stories and point the NYT to report on them based on whatever beef with liberals he’s tweeting about.
ROFL for the people who don’t click through
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1779610393150935404?s=46&t=N0_fcOKIYYmlCS2e4YShsQ
Racist against whites as white!
A good rebuttal to the “NPR is too woke” guy who ran to Bari Weiss’s website (lol) to whine about it:
1 Like
Aw man, I came rushing in to post that, great read.
For most of 2016, many NPR journalists warned newsroom leadership that we weren’t taking Trump and the possibility of his winning seriously enough. But top editors dismissed the chance of a Trump win repeatedly, declaring that Americans would be revolted by this or that outrageous thing he’d said or done. I remember one editorial meeting where a white newsroom leader said that Trump’s strong poll numbers wouldn’t survive his being exposed as a racist. When a journalist of color asked whether his numbers could be rising because of his racism, the comment was met with silence. In another meeting, I and a couple of other editorial leaders were encouraged to make sure that any coverage of a Trump lie was matched with a story about a lie from Hillary Clinton. Another colleague asked what to do if one candidate just lied more than the other. Another silent response.
These people man, JFC.
Steve Inskeep wrote this? Guy is more punk rock than I expected.
To be fair, I naively believed this to some extent until the election night results started going south.
We all were misled because we bought into what NPR and NYT were telling us.
That bit where the one black guy in the room is like “What if white people are into Trump’s racism?” are all the white people get confused… man that is exactly like the Chapelle bit where all his white friends are shocked that Trump won and he was like “Yeah, of course”
1 Like