Good questions, TBD. I don't have a complete agenda of reform for the press--I was mostly just trying to get a convo going--but I do have some thoughts. I think the press should stop using the word "conservative" to describe those 8 senators and 147 House members (all Republicans) who voted against certifying the election, even after 1/6. There is nothing in the slightest bit "conservative" about them, as Liz Cheney rightly notes. They should be called "election denialists" or "authoritarian Republicans" or something else. Maybe you have a better idea.
Good examples! I'd also like to hear very specifically how Jonathan Alter would implement this. Admittedly I'm not convinced Biden has been treated worse than Trump--I actually think he often still gets less pushback from most media than he would were he Trump or any Republican. I thought the media was right to start calling Trump's lies lies, which was a huge thing to do, especially once he was president. But I think that sort of thing has to be used only when something is truly demonstrably a lie--which is a judgement call, admittedly. I wouldn't agree that they should call someone a pedophile before they're convicted of it.
Hm, I don’t doubt democracy is imperiled. But that’s in part because I’ve been reading in main steam media for four years that democracy is in peril. That’s a popular topic. So I’m not entirely clear what the concrete changes are that you want to see in coverage. Would love some specific examples to clarify.
Just for starters, let's apply a few choice, obvious adjectives to seditious congresspersons. Let's call MTG a racist hundreds of times each week. Let's call Gaetz a pedophile hundreds of times too. Let's call Boebert a white supremacist all the time. It's not strictly-balanced journalism, but it's the truth.
Milbank rightly shows Lizza as a quisling for the neo-fascist right. Yes, it's past time to shift the paradigm and report the BIG STORY - democracy in peril!
Good questions, TBD. I don't have a complete agenda of reform for the press--I was mostly just trying to get a convo going--but I do have some thoughts. I think the press should stop using the word "conservative" to describe those 8 senators and 147 House members (all Republicans) who voted against certifying the election, even after 1/6. There is nothing in the slightest bit "conservative" about them, as Liz Cheney rightly notes. They should be called "election denialists" or "authoritarian Republicans" or something else. Maybe you have a better idea.
“I’m not an alarmist! Or a partisan! See, The Atlantic, NYT, and CNN agree with me!”
Bahahhah
Good examples! I'd also like to hear very specifically how Jonathan Alter would implement this. Admittedly I'm not convinced Biden has been treated worse than Trump--I actually think he often still gets less pushback from most media than he would were he Trump or any Republican. I thought the media was right to start calling Trump's lies lies, which was a huge thing to do, especially once he was president. But I think that sort of thing has to be used only when something is truly demonstrably a lie--which is a judgement call, admittedly. I wouldn't agree that they should call someone a pedophile before they're convicted of it.
Hm, I don’t doubt democracy is imperiled. But that’s in part because I’ve been reading in main steam media for four years that democracy is in peril. That’s a popular topic. So I’m not entirely clear what the concrete changes are that you want to see in coverage. Would love some specific examples to clarify.
Just for starters, let's apply a few choice, obvious adjectives to seditious congresspersons. Let's call MTG a racist hundreds of times each week. Let's call Gaetz a pedophile hundreds of times too. Let's call Boebert a white supremacist all the time. It's not strictly-balanced journalism, but it's the truth.
Milbank rightly shows Lizza as a quisling for the neo-fascist right. Yes, it's past time to shift the paradigm and report the BIG STORY - democracy in peril!