SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously acknowledging that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised by the Clintons as she pursued increasing levels of political power — vast sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as a public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.
Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as marginalized and besieged as the former First Lady, two-term New York Senator, Secretary of State, and current establishment-backed multi-millionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet-proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times — heralded himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”
[...] The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as Vox, and The Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the columnists and editorialists of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and most major New-York-based weekly magazines — have been openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong with that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux-objectivity; I believe the danger of Trump’s candidacy warrants that; and I hope this candor continues past the November election — but the everyone-is-against-us self-pity from Clinton partisans is just a joke. They are the dominant voices in elite media discourse, and it’s a big reason why Clinton is highly likely to win.
That’s all the more reason why journalists should be subjecting Clinton’s financial relationships, associations, and secret communications to as much scrutiny as Donald Trump’s. That certainly does not mean that journalists should treat their various sins and transgressions as equivalent: nothing in the campaign compares to Trump’s deport-11-million-people or ban-all-Muslim policies, or his attacks on a judge for his Mexican ethnicity, etc. But this emerging narrative that Clinton should not only enjoy the support of a virtually united elite class but also a scrutiny-free march into the White House is itself quite dangerous. Clinton partisans in the media — including those who regard themselves as journalists — will continue to reflexively attack all reporting that reflects negatively on her, but that reporting should nonetheless continue with unrestrained aggression.
Source: The Intercept
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:12AM
> I'm afraid our country will once again prove it does not deserve a great President.
Since we still have work to fix the mess W left, I'll take "good enough" if I can't get Great.
Maybe I'm narrow-minded when I'm hiring someone to play around with my money, but: "former First Lady, two-term New York Senator, Secretary of State, and current establishment-backed" is the best of the four resumés, and then some cover letters are better written than others.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:32AM
Uh... what? Are you kidding me? Did you miss the part where she supports mass surveillance, supports encryption backdoors, supports more war, supports (but is now pretending not to, as she simply won't do anything to stop it) the TPP, and is a typical politician who is pro-corporation? Will Clinton legitimately try to get rid of the TPP, abolish the TSA, stop mass surveillance, stop corporate bribery, avoid war, and just generally follow the Constitution? Because that sure doesn't seem to be the case. And Trump is no better.
You're only looking at job experience, and disregarding whether or not the candidate is a corrupt, authoritarian piece of shit. That's a recipe for disaster.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:32AM
You are really a caricature. 30 years ago you could have made a ton of money in Hollywood playing the devil, but today, I fear, you are blasé and simply too tame to get a rise out of anyone but us old folks.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:07AM
> a bloodthirsty criminal who has demonstrated complete lack of regard for both US law and universal humanity in charge of the nation
Well, you do get the president you deserve: Will you please remember that both major candidates now hold the record for most primary votes ever?
I've observed a few years of a petty angry vindictive self-obsessed egomaniac with a Napoleon complex lead a major US ally. While I can't see Trump fucking up as badly as W, I also don't want the repeal-50-times-suggest-nothing gerrymandered idiots to go unchecked, and the supreme court to be filled with ayatollahs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:36PM
Will you please remember that both major candidates now hold the record for most primary votes ever?
And yet they have the two lowest opinion poll ratings of any US presidential candidates. Which probably tells you that you need a new way of selecting candidates.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:40AM
Really confuses me how someone who supported everything negative that W did can be trusted to fix what he broke.
Patriot Act
Iraq invasion
Poking the Russian bear
Insulting our European allies
Overspending
Hey its a good thing Hitler is gone, we really need to fix everything he did wrong, how about this Goring guy seems pretty qualifed, he has been there all along so he knows how to fix it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:11AM
I'm not a Clinton fan, but to be fair, keep in mind the social atmosphere during the Bush Administration — newsmedia was parroting the White House's claims as factual truth, and anyone that even questioned his policies was promptly attacked as a terrorist-loving anti-American by the "My President Right Or Wrong" bridgade. Unless virtually all of the Democrats had joined forces (unlikely given how many were/are conservative), refusing to support things like the Patriot Act was political suicide.
Which is likely why we also didn't see Donald Trump using some of his money, power & influence to combat the fascistic policies & bullshit propaganda. It wouldn't have wrecked his career like it would a politician, but the reaction would've been bad enough that his businesses would've likely suffered.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:03AM
Committing trea,, acting against the American people because you are afraid how it will effect your chances of being re-elected is no excuse. This is not the Wilson administration where you could and would be locked up for going against the administration. They knew what they were doing.
Example from a state I am familiar with is representative Peter Defazio. He tried to fight the patriot act and failed, but he tried. He is still in congress today and has never faced a serious opponent.
She was not just a bystander who stood by and let it pass. She argued that it was necessary and helped bolster Democratic support for it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:12PM
A friend of mine's daughter said she liked Trump because he wore a suit, so she'd vote for him because he looks good in a suit.
She's six years old. For some reason, your arguments are just as valid to me. The fact you site no actual job requirements or skills, and only previously held titles without any discussion as to why Hillary was good in these positions--it leads me to believe you are not clear on the concept that it takes more than adornment, via a suit or a resume heading, to effectively lead. You cited no reasons as to what makes her better. Why not tell us she is presently unemployed considering her campaign pursuits? When she loses, we can deny her a position based on the unfeasible reason for the gap in her resume, rather than what she was doing during that time.
Or perhaps you're just in the echo chamber. Soylent may have some that are ignorant, but this isn't Cosmo where our heads need to be filled with simple descriptions because complexity is too hard.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:36PM
If I quoted articles claiming she was regarded as a decent senator, or a good Secretary of State, you'd reply with some that say the opposite, and we'd just spend the day arguing about who's biased.
But you got to hand her the fact that other world leaders do not feel the need to voice their negative opinion of her, and over a dozen bitch-hunt investigations from the Republicans have only turned up mishandling of classified information (which is bad, but nowhere near as world-ending as they try to make it sound, since they haven't successfully connected it to any actual negative effects). She's got skeletons in her closet, but she's president-grade good at hiding them.
Also, the last time the whole world, including our best allies, tried to tell Americans who not to vote for, and we ignored them (ish), we ended up with W. I think we should have learnt to listen.