From The New Republic:


The gist of the grist:

[blockquote]Whether we like it or not, there is reason to be gravely concerned. But against this backdrop, an interesting debate has broken out about the press's role in protecting our too-fragile institutions and raveled civic fabric from a Trumpian assault—and whether the media, in an effort to support democracy, must unflinchingly support Biden, as well.

Over the weekend, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank made considerable waves with a column that rather lustily accused the media of offering President Biden worse coverage than President Trump. At first blush, this might seem impossible, if only because Trump's actions—through corruption, incompetence, and the need to constantly battle the media—made it almost impossible to cover him favorably. Milbank, however, marshaled some statistics from data analytics experts, who combed through hundreds of thousands of articles to provide a detailed “sentiment analysis” supporting his thesis that “Biden's press for the past four months has been as bad as—and for a time worse than—the coverage Trump received for the same four months of 2020.”

But Milbank's most provocative idea posited that the media needed to be “partisan” in the service of democracy. “The country is in an existential struggle between self-governance and an authoritarian alternative. And we in the news media, collectively, have given equal, if not slightly more favorable, treatment to the authoritarians.”[/blockquote]

By "the authoritarians" he means Donald Trump and Republicans. By "self-governance and an authoritarian alternative" he means Joe Biden and the Democrats.

The whole poop: https://newrepublic.com/article/164680/ ... st-milbank

This week, President Joe Biden hopped onto Zoom in an effort to shepherd the world along the path to stronger global democracy, during a two-day summit with other world leaders.

Did the Washington Post's Dana Milbank just admit he's a sheep???

Some comrade hopped, but Biden wasn't one of them. All comrades know this.

And, that's just the opening sentence, comrades.

And, Margaret, that second post - Milbank's stated concern for democracy to save the Republic, in a magazine entitled: "New Republic", seems oxymoronic, and maybe even rambling off into non sequitur territory, to a mythical horned lagomorph.

BuildBackBetterforlocktug,
'pelipsky

It would seem that the American media is collectively writing a prequel to 1984.

It has been noticed that those on the left are pushing the narrative that they 'must save democracy' from those who are center or center-right. It is a fairly correct narrative since democracy is essentially 'mob rule'. The 'simple majority' is what is being pushed because acknowledging that the U.S. is not a democracy, but is a Constitutional Representative Republic would stand in the way of imposing authoritarian statism. One of the hallmarks of the republic is recognizing, and giving voice to, the minority. Thus thwarting the required 'majority rules - loser drools, neener, neener, neener' agenda of the (not so) radical left. One more reason for the watering down of civics education for the masses.

Red Square wrote:It would seem that the American media is collectively writing a prequel to 1984.

Does this prequel meme Hollyweird has script plans for rebooting the whole Orwell franchise?

[img]images/clipart/Prog_Off.gif[/img]I just saw a Youtube Video last night about a movement to "re-imagine" 1984 but from a feminist point of view...instead of Winston Smith's, it will be from Julia's perspective. Truly this will be another un-needed remake of a classic, demonstrating that there hasn't been an original idea in Hollywood in 20 years. (examples, that Ghostbusters disaster, the Ocean's Eight female remake... and the list goes on...)
[img]images/clipart/Prog_On.gif[/img] Only a few simple edits by global replacements are required. 1984 becomes 2024, Big Brother becomes Brandon, change "two-minute hate" to "Mostly Peaceful Protest" and send it to publish.
personally, I'd like to see a Ministry of Plenty (that paid for itself) that would manage vodka rations.

Ivan the Stakhanovets wrote:[img]images/clipart/Prog_Off.gif[/img]I just saw a Youtube Video last night about a movement to "re-imagine" 1984 but from a feminist point of view...instead of Winston Smith's, it will be from Julia's perspective. Truly this will be another un-needed remake of a classic, demonstrating that there hasn't been an original idea in Hollywood in 20 years. (examples, that Ghostbusters disaster, the Ocean's Eight female remake... and the list goes on...)
[img]images/clipart/Prog_On.gif[/img] Only a few simple edits by global replacements are required. 1984 becomes 2024, Big Brother becomes Brandon, change "two-minute hate" to "Mostly Peaceful Protest" and send it to publish.
personally, I'd like to see a Ministry of Plenty (that paid for itself) that would manage vodka rations.

This is most illuminating about our future of constant reboots that just never have the propulsion properties of the original.

But all this re-imagining what already exists is kind of chaotic in it's nature.

It's sort of like 'pelipsky's conversation lecture from Psychology Professor from across the street. Everything is chaos....blah,blah,blanh...chaos is good...blah, blah, blah...the universe is chaos...blah, bla, bla, blah, blah, blah, blah! The Professor finished up his neighborly lecture to the horned lagomorph free ranging neighborly from across the street.

'pelipsky pondered a moment and answered, "Yeah, but the universe ain't chaos....otherwise we wouldn't have the scientific method!"

He moved to San Antonio, Texazistan, where the scientific method doesn't work.

forelocktug,
'pelipsky