All corporate media — even if it is claimed to be left-leaning — is hungry for the nonsense generated by the right because they make everything into a juicy scandal with the appearance of newsworthiness.
I've been talking about this for years, but I think most people still don't see how deeply the profit motive drives all news coverage.
MSM covered every Trump press briefing like a pack of hungry wolves, because Trump was guaranteed to throw them meat.
The meat could have been lies, or insane policy, or name-calling or whatever. But it generated eyeballs.
Psaki's press conferences are about "boring" things like solving problems and avoiding divisiveness, and so MSM has already abandoned full coverage of them.
But now MSM is desperate for stories that make money. Divisive stories that get people arguing and mad at each other are the most profitable.
If those stories don't come up naturally, MSM has to create them.
But lucky for MSM, the modern right-wing thrives on creating division where there was none before. So the right creates stories based on lies, but the stories are "juicy" so they get reported by every major outlet.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Also, it seems to me that Biden's refusal to speak to MBS might be more significant than it seems. MBS' political power takes a big hit. Yes you can argue that's not enough and we should sanction and that's fine.
But if you do think sanctions were more appropriate, don't just grouse about it here, contact your Senators and Rep, and also send a message to Biden. This can actually bring change, while social media criticisms are a double edged sword that may do more harm than good.
First, I should disclose that I work at the fame research facility as Dr. Loeb, though I work in a different department and to my recollection we've never met.
He's a scientist; I'm in computer support.
With that out of the way...
The interview above is worth a read, and a lot of serious thought, because there's an idea there that's really critical to science, and it isn't whether or not aliens have visited (exactly).
The hit piece against @SethAbramson has really gotten under my skin. And it's not because I worship the ground he walks on. I've been critical of him many times in the past and I'm sure I will be in the future.
I might even agree with some elements in the story. There's probably a very good piece to write about the relative merits and problems with Seth's approach to journalism does, but this piece isn't it.
The real problem is the highlighted section of this early paragraph in the story.
So is Apple's anti-theft security a wonderful boon to users?
Or is it just another evil corporation strengthening it's monopoly power?
I had the misfortune of buying a 2018 Mac Mini on ebay a few days ago. Unfortunately, it had not been wiped, and it's security defaults had never been changed.
This essentially turns it into a very shiny paperweight.
And this is where everybody jumps to blame the victim. "But everybody knows you have to make sure the seller wipes the Mac."
My how the corporate overlords have trained us to be their apologists.
This is what I've believed too for a while. It's clear that there were efforts prior to this to promote Trump, with Rykov and Project Lakhta both active throughout 2015.
It's hard to know if Rykov and the people bankrolling him and Project Lakhta were true believers, or if they just thought they were creating general disruption, but I still tend to agree that there wasn't a general consensus of viability until early 2016.
Note also that Maria Butina made statements about Trump in 2015. Again, we don't know if it was primarily disruptive. I always believed Butina's operation had everything to do with NRA and Congress, and little to do with Trump, except when convenient because of her placement.
OK I'm all for going in to a brawl with McConnell over the filibuster, but if we don't have even 50 votes for it (Dems Sinema, Manchin oppose removing it), there's no reason to fight this battle at all correct?
Although I have to say, if Schumer was gonna agree to keep filibuster in place in any case, in exchange for some other concession from McConnell, didn't Manchin and Sinema just ruin Schumer's negotiating leverage?