I saw that when Jen Psaki chose to air him live during a WH address, some were upset with her, some felt she cut him off right when she should have, while others didn't seem to care either way. Her rationale was that she can't just ignore him. Of course she's right. But where's the happy medium?
She's on fire. And I don't mean her red hair. She's killing it. I'm learning a lot more about these candidates
So here are the questionss:
Did MSNOW ever provide any medical evidence that Biden was suffering from "cognitive decline"?
Were you aware that there's a difference, medically speaking, between ordinary aging and "cognitive decline"?
At any time during the coverage of Biden's supposed "cognitive decline", do you recall the media ever making that distinction?
To hear MAGA tell it, both networks are identically "liberal". With the definition of liberal being "anti-Trump". There's a grain of truth to that framing. Because both networks devote a disproportionate amount of coverage to Trump. But "anti-Trump" doesn't necessarily mean "liberal". If you're the type of person who channel-surfs from one network to the next, you'll find some very distinct differences. For one thing, CNN seems to have more resources and staff. They have correspondents all over the world. Ready to report on global breaking news at a moment's notice. MSNOW seems to operate on a smaller budget. Unless it's a special, their typical productions seem to lean heavily on being cost-effective. Not a lot of expense is devoted to them. They are pretty much cookie-cutter segments, all using a familiar template. Take some clip or post, or news article, about Trump and run with it all day. Of course, I'm being overly simplistic. The production value of CNN segments is relatively similar. Only, there does appear to be more work put into their segments. MSNOW relies most on studio presentations. CNN is more global.
Your thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW3oPJlLiMw
The entire segment is instructive if you want examples of media framing. But the Kamala Harris reference especially stood out. Why? Because there doesn't appear to be any obvious connection between Kamala Harris and what they're reporting. It's as if the producers told the host, "Just throw in a Kamala Harris reference for no apparent reason". But it's what she says that's interesting:4:10
4 minutes, 10 seconds
One of the things that I'm interested in, Josh, because you've worked for both Kamala Harris, like a person who is known for being, maybe too cautious, right?
4 minutes, 19 seconds
Like, not known necessarily for their retail politics and style.
Well, not known by whom exactly? And other than this guy, Josh Orton, having previously worked for her, why was Harris even brought up?
It's not that difficult to find evidence that Harris is, in fact, very adept at retail politics. There are social media clips all over the internet garnering millions of views. As far as being "too cautious". Well, that particular narrative seems to be more the MSM getting their feelings hurt because she bypassed traditional media during her presidential campaign.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/kamala-harris-interviews-election-campaign/
Just curious about this 'invisible primary" thingy. What does it mean? What's the deal? Let's discuss, please. Let's discuss the media's role. For instance, if it appears that the MSM has chosen an early favorite. What subtle cues have you noticed? What about the polls versus prediction markets? For instance, Harris seems to be leading in the polls. However, prediction markets tend to favor Newsom. What's the deal with that? Will these predictions shift once candidates start announcing? And, of course, let's do discuss donors, political insiders, and the consultant class- those political commentators, especially paid contributors. They all come on these MSM shows and give their opinions. What's their angle? Are they doing the bidding of donors? Oh, and these leaks questioning the political viability of any particular candidate. Or that story in Axios about restricting the next Democratic nominee to a straight white male. What about that? How do you feel about the whole "electability" argument? Let's do this?
Your thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc9w9Oe3Z00Submission
Clip is from 6 months ago. I ran across it on YouTube. Let's analyze it objectively. Does the panel take a non-event (a campaign social media rebrand), inject unsourced "confusion" into it , then treat the manufactured confusion as if it reflects on the subject rather than on the reporting? Or is this typical of what the media does? Breaking down the specific moves below. Watched this MS NOW segment on Harris renaming her 2024 campaign accounts to "Headquarters." A few things worth flagging:
Ashley Parker opens by saying she doesn't "fully understand" the rebrand, then cites unnamed "Democratic operatives who like the vice president and also don't fully understand it. These are anonymous sources, so there's no way to verify this claim exists outside the segment. It's a classic move: assert a competing narrative through unaccountable sourcing, and let that framing become the story instead of the actual (fairly self-explanatory) thing Harris announced. Objectively speaking, is what Harris announced that difficult to understand?
Parker describes a large, enthusiastic crowd in Richmond (long lines, arrived early, predominantly Black women, "the base" of the party), then immediately hedges with "crowd size isn't everything" and "I don't know." But turnout/popularity and "should she run again" are separate questions. Citing the crowd only to discount it right after creates an appearance of even-handedness while the anonymous, unverifiable skepticism does the actual interpretive work. Objectively speaking, if she had spoken to the audience member at the Harris event, would she have gotten a different opinion?
The Black women who actually showed up in Richmond are described (their presence, their numbers) but never quoted. Their turnout is used as evidence, but their voice is absent. The anonymous operatives, despite being unnamed and unverifiable, get their view stated directly and given interpretive weight. Objectively speaking, what about the optic? This is an all-white panel. Parker references women of color who enthusiactly attend Harris events. But discounts them immediately. Then says people she's talked to anonymously say they don't think Harris should run. Objectively speaking, does this give the impression that black women voice, the base of the party, doesn't matter? Caveat: She did say that "they aren't everything".
Tonal contrast with the Newsom discussion in the same segment is worth a look too. His digital strategy and magazine shoot get discussed in terms of momentum and savvy, while Harris's routine, fairly self-explanatory announcement gets treated as inherently confusing and in need of explanation.
Objectively speaking, did a non-story get inflated into "will she run" solely for the purpose of casting doubt on Harris as a viable presidential candidate for 2028?
I thought it was a very awkward way to phrase a question. Why would a host on a major cable news network be asking this sort of question? Isn't it her job to be neutral? With, of course, the caveat that this isn't a straight news show. Alex Witt is more like a gossip columnist with her own show in these segments. This one in particular, it was like media types with an agenda talking about their roles in the invisible primary out loud. The answer to the question Alex posed is what I found the most interesting. Hayes was all but coming right out and saying, "What we're doing right now with your show, Alex"...."that's how we prop up candidates we in the media like"
First , just look at her expression before she's asked to speak. She really seems like she has something to get off her chest. Then, once she's allowed to speak, she stumbles over her words. "For right now she just has that she's....she can't turn down the opportunity, so she leaves people speculating, she's not, Don's right she's earn the right to be on the stage....".I"ll just let you listen to the rest. Is she making any sense?
Just asking for your assessment of MSNOW coverage of Kamala Harris. It comes up because I just watched a segment they did on Alicia Menendez. If "segment' is even the right word. It came out of the blue. Menendez just decided to mention Harris. She played a heavily edited clip of Harris speaking at the National Urban League Conference. And when I say edited, I mean it was a brutal edit; you could see the footage jump. They played Harris saying how the Republicans are being ruthless, so we need to be ruthless too. Then, it jumps to her saying we need to start talking about court reform. Then, she asked Molly Jong-Fast to comment.
Fast seemed to have trouble with Harris bringing court reform up now, ahead of the midterms. She thinks it should wait until after we win the midterms. Except this was a town hall. Harris is in the news because of her statement, but there's no evidence that her remarks are resonating as an issue in the midterms. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that Fast has the same issue with others, like Gavin Newsom or Pete Buttigieg, talking about court reform. Other than Fast, I haven't seen anyone else with this particular criticism. Frankly, it comes across as a little petty.
This isn't a one-off either. I've started multiple threads about this.
This is the point I'm trying to make about the media. While Fox News was propping up Trump 24/7, so was every other media outlet. They never went a day, or even an hour, without reporting on Trump. They saw the polling themselves. They knew they were creating the media environment that benefited Trump. They saw how he was exploiting their reporting to his advantage. Poll after poll. It was being measured in real time. They saw it. They saw the effect it was having. Yet they continued to make the editorial choice to keep reporting on Trump in a way that benefited him politically in his bid to take back the WH.
While on the other side, they drove Biden's approval rating down so low that there was no way he could ever get reelected. They try to claim it was organic, that voters were reacting naturally to their economic circumstances. But that's a lie. Time and time again, Biden was telling voters there was more to do. Then, the media would rush out and lie about what he said and claim he was out of touch. Yes, he did tout the legislative accomplishments of his administration. Who wouldn't? He touted the Inflation Reduction Act, for instance, because it was a major legislative accomplishment. But at that very press conference, he told the American people there was more to do. Did the media report on that? No. Instead, they twisted his touting the bill into the narrative, "Biden is out of touch," or "Biden is telling voters not to believe what they're feeling." They still tell that lie to this day.
Then there was the reporting on Biden's age. Is Biden elderly? Yes. Was he showing signs of physical and mental decline related to his age? Yes. Was there any proof, as in medical documentation, that he was suffering from "cognitive decline"? No. The medical documentation shows the opposite. But the media made a big deal out of him not taking a cognitive test. His doctor said the test wasn't administered unless it was indicated. Here's where it gets factual: the media conflated clinical "cognitive decline" with ordinary signs of aging. They did it by showing Biden in clips and attributing that to cognitive decline. Then, yes, there was the debate. Was that evidence of cognitive decline? No. There needs to be a doctor's diagnosis for that. We learned later that Biden had COVID, jet lag, and a cold.
Finally, the media was coordinating with elected members of Biden's own party to drive him out of the race, all based on that debate. Did the media ever once say they don't have evidence of cognitive decline? No. Did they ever attribute the debate performance to a combination of COVID, having gone on a grueling foreign trip, jet lag, and his cold? No. At least not in a persuasive way. The media coordinated with the Democratic establishment to bring Biden down, and, along with it, the Democratic ticket, making it next to impossible for Harris, or anybody else, to win.
Now, if you turn on MSNOW it's Trump, Trump, Trump, 24/7 all day, every day. It's the same reporting that hurt Democrats in the last presidential election. They aren't adequately focused on other things that are going on with Democrats. Not unless there's drama to report.
Experiment: Tune in to every MSNOW show at the top of the hour and time how long it is before they start talking about Trump. Typically, it will be one minute. Then, throughout the show, Trump is the main topic. As Psaki said when she decided to air Trump's election speech Friday, they can't just ignore him. He's the president, unfortunately, and it's their job to keep us informed.
So where's the balance? At what point is it a bit too much? We know there's media fatigue over Trump. What's your tolerance level?
For me, it seems to fluctuate each day. MSNOW is my favorite network. But sometimes just hearing his voice has me turning the sound off, switching the channel, or just turning the news off completely and maybe going for a walk. Or even to the beach.
Tuned in to see The Rachel Maddow Show, and it was "The Briefing with Jen Psaki". Usually, Jen is on from Tuesday to Friday. No fair, because I'm an elderly gentleman, and it made me think it was Tuesday instead of Monday. Where's Rachel? Will she be back? Anybody know what's up?
Just compare these two video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9FSFIbwtsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf9laIO78tU
It's been happening all week. Multiple correspondents have been trying to rewrite history. The complaints that the process to nominate Harris was through "smoke-filled rooms" were coming from Trump and the Republicans. If there were any concerns about that coming from Democratic voters, MSNBC sure didn't report on it.
All of the black hosts on MSNOW are restricted to co-host roles, except one. Until Alicia Menendez's new show starts, MSNOW currently has three white blonde female hosts, Chris Jansing, Katy Tur, and Nicole Wallace, each with 2-hour shows. That's 6 consecutive hours of white blonde hosts. Then, they have Michael Steele and Symone Sanders co-hosting a show. MSNOW currently has zero solo weekday hosts. On the weekend, there is Al Sharpton. Sharpton is the only solo black hosts on MSNOW. The other two black hosts, again, are restricted to co-host roles. There's a word for these kinds of practices. It's called "segregation".
https://reddit.com/link/1triymn/video/csmlofrmr54h1/player
Kamala is leading in all of the polls. Except this one. This poll is a clear outlier. I challenge anyone who is watching MSNOW. If they show a poll with Harris leading at all. Show me where it's a simple acknowledgement that she's leading in most of the polls. I post this because I'm establishing a clear pattern of MSNOW premptively sabotaging Kamala Harris.
https://reddit.com/link/1triymn/video/33twiptas54h1/player
Here they are doing it again. In this poll Harris leads. But, Witt only showed the "electability" metric. While not showing that Harris was leading in the overall findings of the pollster
https://reddit.com/link/1triymn/video/o3c1duwns54h1/player
This one speaks for itself. Del Persio is so anxious to slander her and is so animated she, firstly, doesn't even answer the question she was asked. Then, she trips all over her words in some unintelligible tirade.
I can't post comments. I can't say anything even remotely critical of their network. They'll censor it. So, why am I seeing their articles posted up on my reddit page every time I log on?
What if the KDS crowd succeeds?
And by KDS, I mean Kamala Derangement Syndrome.
The obsessive, emotionally driven fixation where every discussion about Kamala Harris immediately turns into:
"She can't win."
"She shouldn't run."
"She has no support."
"She's finished."
"Move on."
Short list of media articles:
Even some of the disappointment with regard to the Democratic autopsy hints at it.
At some point, it stops looking like "strategic analysis" and starts looking like a coordinated effort to force her out of the conversation before voters even get a choice.
So let's ask the obvious question:
What happens if the KDS crowd gets what it wants?
What happens if Kamala Harris decides not to run in 2028 because the media class, donor class, consultants, pundits, and terminally online "electability" crowd spend years treating her candidacy like something illegitimate before it even begins?
Then what?
Who replaces the coalition she built? Because you can't just "inherit" that.
Who replaces her support among Black voters? Because you can't just 'inherit" that.
Who inherits her national infrastructure?
Who exactly are Democrats clearing the field for?
Because right now, a lot of the anti-Kamala coverage doesn't even feel constructive. It feels emotional. Personal. Almost compulsive.
And the strangest part?
Many of the same people insisting she "can't win" are actively trying to make sure she never gets the chance to prove otherwise.
Finally, let's stop dancing around this question. Not a threat. Just facing reality. Say these folks are successful at scaring Kamala off. That's the context. Depending on how far they need to go to accomplish their goals. Say, purely as a concept, Kamala Harris supporters feel she was treated unfairly. Say, as a consequence, they decide to stay home. How do these KDS folks intend to win the election without her coalition? Even if just a small percentage stay home.
https://reddit.com/link/1tkna91/video/atb4fp0mop2h1/player
Notice anything? I've got the sound off. Why? Because, this man has dominated the news cycle for over 10 years. What makes any news network think its viewers care to watch him first thing in the morning every friggin day - much less ALL OF THEM?