Red Mosquito

LoathedVermin72 wrote:For the record, I never specified this was about Stewart; you guys brought him up. It's a much larger phenomenon than just his show.

I could not disagree more with this, though:

I would also argue that while his show was obviously liberal it was much more about challenging institutional power than simply being another tired red team vs blue team spokesman.

All I ever saw when I watched his show was "blue is better than red" pandering. If anything, he seemed liked the patron saint of contemporary liberalism.

I think that liberals viewed him that way, but he was much more than blue/red guy IMO. I'm not a member of the blue team and I think he's pretty wrong about the majority of economic issues but I loved the guy.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:All I ever saw when I watched his show was "blue is better than red" pandering. If anything, he seemed liked the patron saint of contemporary liberalism.

I didn't get that feeling at all. I do, however, get that feeling from John Oliver, which is why it's tough for me to enjoy his show even though he's damn funny.

The only thing the news media is probably at fault in when it comes to October Surprises is labeling things an "October Surprise" when they are generally fairly insignificant. Most of the recent surprises don't really rise to the level of Nixon-McGovern or secret Iran hostage negotiations.

More recently, it's been more like an "October smear," like the 2000 report of Bush II's drunk driving arrest from the '70s, or the report about Obama's aunt who was living in the US illegally.

I remember being convinced that they'd announce the capture and death of bin Laden right before the 2004 election.

Simple Torture wrote:More recently, it's been more like an "October smear," like the 2000 report of Bush II's drunk driving arrest from the '70s, or the report about Obama's aunt who was living in the US illegally.

Exactly, but Trump is still (unfortunately) a big draw. People want to watch him. The media doesn't want him gone yet, so they will hold back until the right time.

b_i_revisited wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:More recently, it's been more like an "October smear," like the 2000 report of Bush II's drunk driving arrest from the '70s, or the report about Obama's aunt who was living in the US illegally.

Exactly, but Trump is still (unfortunately) a big draw. People want to watch him. The media doesn't want him gone yet, so they will hold back until the right time.

Nobody but nobody is under the impression that insane Trump stories need to be rationed out like wartime tires. They're a self-replenishing resource.

McParadigm wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:More recently, it's been more like an "October smear," like the 2000 report of Bush II's drunk driving arrest from the '70s, or the report about Obama's aunt who was living in the US illegally.

Exactly, but Trump is still (unfortunately) a big draw. People want to watch him. The media doesn't want him gone yet, so they will hold back until the right time.

Nobody but nobody is under the impression that insane Trump stories need to be rationed out like wartime tires. They're a self-replenishing resource.

Yeah, I mean, as I suggested a little bit above: it's not like there aren't dozens and dozens of examples of him saying something that's offensive, ignorant, or that twists the truth. I highly doubt there's anything out there that's worse that someone hasn't dug up yet.

Simple Torture wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:More recently, it's been more like an "October smear," like the 2000 report of Bush II's drunk driving arrest from the '70s, or the report about Obama's aunt who was living in the US illegally.

Exactly, but Trump is still (unfortunately) a big draw. People want to watch him. The media doesn't want him gone yet, so they will hold back until the right time.

Nobody but nobody is under the impression that insane Trump stories need to be rationed out like wartime tires. They're a self-replenishing resource.

Yeah, I mean, as I suggested a little bit above: it's not like there aren't dozens and dozens of examples of him saying something that's offensive, ignorant, or that twists the truth. I highly doubt there's anything out there that's worse that someone hasn't dug up yet.

We shall see.

4/5 wrote:I remember being convinced that they'd announce the capture and death of bin Laden right before the 2004 election.

Thanks Obama!

b_i_revisited wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:More recently, it's been more like an "October smear," like the 2000 report of Bush II's drunk driving arrest from the '70s, or the report about Obama's aunt who was living in the US illegally.

Exactly, but Trump is still (unfortunately) a big draw. People want to watch him. The media doesn't want him gone yet, so they will hold back until the right time.

This would be a conspiracy of massive proportions. There is way too much competition, not to mention competing incentives, for there to be some sort of collective media collusion to wait to out Trump as a fraud in October to help Hillary win. Not to mention how ridiculous that sentence is, as if simply reporting on Trump's daily Twitter posts doesn't essentially serve that same purpose.

4/5 wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:More recently, it's been more like an "October smear," like the 2000 report of Bush II's drunk driving arrest from the '70s, or the report about Obama's aunt who was living in the US illegally.

Exactly, but Trump is still (unfortunately) a big draw. People want to watch him. The media doesn't want him gone yet, so they will hold back until the right time.

This would be a conspiracy of massive proportions. There is way too much competition, not to mention competing incentives, for there to be some sort of collective media collusion to wait to out Trump as a fraud in October to help Hillary win. Not to mention how ridiculous that sentence is, as if simply reporting on Trump's daily Twitter posts doesn't essentially serve that same purpose.

But it's so much easier to just think of the entirety of media as a small group of men in a conference room running the world.

4/5 wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:More recently, it's been more like an "October smear," like the 2000 report of Bush II's drunk driving arrest from the '70s, or the report about Obama's aunt who was living in the US illegally.

Exactly, but Trump is still (unfortunately) a big draw. People want to watch him. The media doesn't want him gone yet, so they will hold back until the right time.

This would be a conspiracy of massive proportions. There is way too much competition, not to mention competing incentives, for there to be some sort of collective media collusion to wait to out Trump as a fraud in October to help Hillary win. Not to mention how ridiculous that sentence is, as if simply reporting on Trump's daily Twitter posts doesn't essentially serve that same purpose.

I should have clarified, I thought it was obvious I was not suggesting a massive conspiracy between every reporter on earth to control what is or isn't news at any given moment in this election cycle. But I do believe that the spin a candidate gets in media coverage is tied to the economic goals of the outlets owners and advertisers. Media is a product, they are selling that product to make a profit, that product has a target market, and they don't want to alienate consumers in that market in the face of declining revenues. Trump brings eyeballs to the screens and his name brings readers to the pages. They would be silly not to go after that revenue by killing the floppy haired golden goose to soon. So, yes, I do think there is a general pattern of behavior in the media right now to cover Trump, but not some form of collusion.

b_i_revisited wrote:

4/5 wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:More recently, it's been more like an "October smear," like the 2000 report of Bush II's drunk driving arrest from the '70s, or the report about Obama's aunt who was living in the US illegally.

Exactly, but Trump is still (unfortunately) a big draw. People want to watch him. The media doesn't want him gone yet, so they will hold back until the right time.

This would be a conspiracy of massive proportions. There is way too much competition, not to mention competing incentives, for there to be some sort of collective media collusion to wait to out Trump as a fraud in October to help Hillary win. Not to mention how ridiculous that sentence is, as if simply reporting on Trump's daily Twitter posts doesn't essentially serve that same purpose.

I should have clarified, I thought it was obvious I was not suggesting a massive conspiracy between every reporter on earth to control what is or isn't news at any given moment in this election cycle. But I do believe that the spin a candidate gets in media coverage is tied to the economic goals of the outlets owners and advertisers. Media is a product, they are selling that product to make a profit, that product has a target market, and they don't want to alienate consumers in that market in the face of declining revenues. Trump brings eyeballs to the screens and his name brings readers to the pages. They would be silly not to go after that revenue by killing the floppy haired golden goose to soon. So, yes, I do think there is a general pattern of behavior in the media right now to cover Trump, but not some form of collusion.

I hear you. In the context of October Surprises it probably sounded more like a conspiracy theory than intended. I agree that as a collective Trump has been a golden goose of revenues for media outlets, but I don't think that would stop anybody from breaking a story that could be his undoing because let's face it--as big as Trump is right now can you imagine the attention that Trump Scandal would get? The inevitable Downfall of Trump story can be just as big as the Rise of Trump story if it's caused by something truly dramatic.

With 0% reporting the ny times has called Mississippi for Clinton. That's one of my bigger pet peeves with political reporting

stip wrote:With 0% reporting the ny times has called Mississippi for Clinton. That's one of my bigger pet peeves with political reporting

What do you propose as an alternative?

there's gotta be some vintage foul Trump stuff out there. he is an 80s cliche. The 80s were ferocious. cocaine, chauvisnism, smoking indoors, all totally OK. There's gotta be some grainy home movie of him doing blow at a wedding off of a gilded pony and then cursing out a black waiter for making eye contact with him and laughing it up with some phonies. something like that. he has been scum-bagging far too long and in eras far too permissive of true dirtbaggery for there not to be.

96583UP wrote:there's gotta be some vintage foul Trump stuff out there. he is an 80s cliche. The 80s were ferocious. cocaine, chauvisnism, smoking indoors, all totally OK. There's gotta be some grainy home movie of him doing blow at a wedding off of a gilded pony and then cursing out a black waiter for making eye contact with him and laughing it up with some phonies. something like that. he has been scum-bagging far too long and in eras far too permissive of true dirtbaggery for there not to be.

why do you think anyone would care?

maybe those will alienate the evangelicals

but many of them are also the racists, so....

perhaps we need a venn diagram to help understand the cross-correlations of the various voter groups and which value systems override the other