Here's what political media needs to understand about the catastrophe of 2016: it's not bad luck that led it to absorb and propagate right-wing talking points.
It was real incentives and social pressures - all of which CONTINUE TO EXIST TODAY. crooked.com/articles/2020-…
As long as political media remains a tightly-knit circle of elite insiders whose professional advancement depends chiefly on the approval of each other, there will be strong pressure to revert back to the failed practices of the past.
It doesn't help, either, that political media circles are connected to a large number of GOP partisans who remain part of the social scene, regardless of how unreliable they have proven. And it REALLY doesn't help that white men, and their fixations and biases, predominate.
I think this is what Ben Smith is missing. It's true that the social back-and-forth of Twitter is distinct from the carefully studied content of published pieces.
The problem is, the social interactions are actually MORE important for driving the tenor of coverage.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’ve wondered if this is the root of the low-level panic a lot of Democrats feel, the constant attention suck that is Trump and politics, the doomscrolling: it feels like nobody is in charge and if we don’t pay close attention to every problem, every problem will get worse.
I’ve said this before but it’s simply exhausting - truly, physically exhausting - to know that not only will all manner of horrors occur between now and next week, every single week, but that even the people in government purportedly on our side will likely do nothing about them.
Did she help ferret out his misdeeds? Did she outmaneuver him at the negotiating table, achieving Dem priorities? Did she hold his cronies accountable or uncover corruption at the agencies? Did she ever use any of the "arrows in her quiver" that she wasn't going to talk about?
Or was she, at best, a mildly irksome presence for Trump in the House, someone who insulted him time to time while holding her own caucus at bay and suppressing any movement within it to impose consequences or accountability on the administration?
The irony is that the kind of government Jamelle is describing - one in which the branches act to protect their own governing prerogatives - is much more reflective of the ideas of the US constitutions than the mechanistic process envisioned by his critics
A lot of people have this 5th-grade view of "checks and balances" where it means rules built into the system - veto, judicial review, confirmations. But it's broader than that: it's the idea that a hypertrophied branch will be cut back down to size when it endangers the other two
"Checks and balances" is a principle to be upheld and expressed in government, not an invitation to comb over the rules until - oops! - you find the trump-card rule that can't be checked or balanced, and use it to secure permanent control in defiance of electoral majorities
protip: talking like this ("the takes were right directionally, but wrong magnitude-wise") is the secret handshake that makes you a member in good standing of the white male pundit social club
no normal person talks like this and the ideas being communicated are just broad observations undeserving of a veneer of mathematical precision. it's just a register - one designed to convey the speaker's own empiricism, objective rationality, and authoritative knowledge