onfocus

I really like this text-only version of the NPR news site. I understand why more sites don't do this, but they should. I normally don't go to any NPR sites, but I do visit this page fairly often to scan the headlines. See also: CNN Lite, CBC Lite

Every article written about Trump’s blitzkrieg against DEI should have at least a short section explaining in the institution’s own voice why these programs were needed and how diversity is valuable. Not doing that is journalistic malpractice. And I haven’t seen anyone do it.

Sorry, that information has been placed in the Memory Hole.

They’re buying magazines we love, closing their print operations, turning them into digital-only, laying off the actual journalists who made us trust in their content in the first place, and hiring third-party companies to run the affiliate arm of their sites.

Trusted media brands are cashing in on search engine affiliate marketing with thin gruel content.

Democrats are missing something that is arguably a prerequisite for ideological messaging to have any effect whatsoever: a media apparatus that can get these messages in front of swing voters. The content of the message doesn’t matter if voters never hear it. An obvious place to start would be to build up straightforward reporting operations in news deserts in critical states, and to stop making traditional election broadcast ads the core focus of campaign spending.

True, but bleak. No easy fixes.

I’ll be looking for ecosystem growth in directions that enable survival independent of the company. In the way that email is independent of any technology provider or network operator. Just like Mastodon and the Fediverse already are.

This is a good take on how to analyze social media. I also don't want to put any energy into a service that has the full ability to alter the connections at any point. Bluesky is yet another service with high switching costs. That's attractive to investors and advertisers, bad for users.

Historians: He’s a fascist. Political scientists: He’s a fascist. His own aides: He’s a fascist. The NYT: He shows a wistful longing for a bygone era of global politics.

That, in essence, is the issue with these headlines.

Breaking my rule about linking to Substack because the NYT coverage of the election has been abysmal. In a just world it would mean the end of the NYT. (It would be ok, we could get our word games somewhere else.) But maybe there are enough fascist-curious consumers and backers to keep it going. They just need one billionaire to weather any storm.

A reality-based article comparing the candidates’ “housing plans” would have gone something like: Harris, who talks about housing all the time on the stump, has a real and reasonably detailed plan that economists say has some good points and bad points; Trump shows no sign of having given even 10 seconds of thought to the housing crisis (on Trump’s 20-point platform, the word isn’t mentioned), and by the way, he spent four years as president, during which time he amassed a thoroughly rotten record on housing and never once showed any interest in ameliorating the affordable housing crisis; how about that?

The media reports "mass deportations" are a housing plan with a straight face without describing the chaos and agony of that "plan". As if inflicting mass violence is just another viable option for you to consider.

They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over.

Continual normalization across all media is the problem. How can we have an informed electorate if the information isn’t accurate?

It is not a divided America. Patriots are gathering together and putting past differences aside to forestall a next civil war, to support and defend the Constitution. The movement that matters is not Trump’s and the Republicans’ fascist insurrection, which is the one that gets attention in news media. The movement that matters now is this one: the movement for democracy.

The NYT isn’t giving this story any weight. Will any other mainstream press outlets?

Jeff Jarvis, a journalist and professor at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism, reacted to that column with scorn, tweeting, “What ‘press’? The broken and vindictive [New York] Times? The newly Murdochian [New York] Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch's fascist media? No. [Harris] can choose many ways to communicate her stands with others outside the old press and with the public directly. The old press can and should be bypassed.”

Amen. They treated Biden like garbage and give endless respect, admiration, and smoothing-over to Trump who calls for acts of violence against them. It makes no sense.

Some journalists are so caught up in the debate furor that one of the most dangerous and consequential Supreme Court terms in memory was pushed off the front pages. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on immunity found that president’s might actually be kings, that’s a game changer that deserves more attention than it got. Instead, news outlets have dedicated most of their resources to covering every blip on the Biden debate follow up instead.

Wake up, journalists! Our democracy depends on an informed electorate and this horse race BS is a sideshow compared with the real story of a massive judicial power grab by a corrupt court.

Anyway, my point is just: none of this will change if Harris replaces Biden at the top of the ticket. The idea that the media -- with these soulless careerist court gossips in charge -- will allow it is just fantasy. They need Dems in disarray & so they will engineer it.

I don’t like to link to stuff on new Twitter but this is a nice summary of the media mode of operation. There is no move that Democrats can make that will change how the media covers them. You have to factor that into your decision making.