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: 4, Interesting) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:59AM
So they pay you 8 dollars an hour for that or am I confusing different parts of the Hillary machine?
Anyway my commiserations to you and may you and everyone like you find better and less soul-corroding employment. I'd like to say I would never do anything like that but long ago when I was nineteen and just before I became homeless for a very brief time I did a short stint in "telemarketing" so I can't: desperation is desperation, extremely few truly choose such jobs.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:12AM
Giving credit where credit it due, posting that disclaimer was the most honest bit of propaganda I heard from either side since this bullshit "elections" started.
For what it's worth, it earned my mod point through integrity.
compiling...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:26AM
I took him at his word but I'm guessing he wasn't actually posting on their behalf but added it to draw attention to the fact that people are being paid to post for Hillary.. And then even if this person wasn't there are people who do (but likely not here at Soylent). I don't think they usually sign their posts with disclaimers :D
Anyway maybe we need a +1 Ironic :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:40AM
Its a literary rorschach test - what you make of it reveals how you perceive the world to be.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:26AM
You're right but that applies to everything, some people go as far to include anything that is not written but that gets too bothersome (and even more prone to error) for me. Language & human communication in general is deficient & narrow, it's Babel all the way down (or up or sideways) :) or maybe that ought to be :|
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1, Informative) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:19AM
I realized I need to correct myself, it wasn't before but about a year afterwards, several small stints before I managed to escape into the postal system (which is heaven in comparison: real work combined with university studies). I'm sure I'm the only one who cares (or would know) but anyway.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))