Pearls Before Swine (AMS) offers a yes-but-no discussion of our situation. There certainly are a lot of people siloed in their own little belief centers, and that’s a problem in a democratic system where people are supposed to make informed decisions.
But there is such a thing as truth, and there is such a thing as having a political viewpoint, and there is such a thing as deliberate slant. And there are lies.
When I was speaking to high school students about political cartoons, and specifically Thomas Nast, I’d explain that each town had two newspapers, one Democratic and one Republican, and that Nast followed the politics of his chosen party. To make it clear, I cited Fox and MSNBC as examples and the kids would nod. It’s not a secret.
One source may add colorful minor stories to its overall coverage if they exemplify its point of view. That’s spin.
But to hide major stories that don’t fit your narrative while promoting dubious half-told stories is not the same thing.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. Sometimes it’s not.
Kirk Anderson offers a humorous look at the deceit available to those who are willing to fall for anything. It would be nice if this stuff were confined to the lunatic section of grocery checkout lines, but it’s long since gone mainstream.
Not that New York City hasn’t always had its share of “Headless Body Found In Topless Bar” coverage before, but when a popular newspaper there begins covering fender-benders 600 miles away, you are entitled to wonder if perhaps they have a goal other than encouraging driver safety.
Here’s the story: There were no injuries and the driver asked the reporter this question: “I went to turn, there was an accident and that’s it. Why are you asking me questions?”
They don’t answer his question, but schools there were closed for two days due to bomb threats and an event at the local college was canceled because of a threat to shoot Haitians.
I haven’t seen MSNBC pushing a similar narrative, though they did quote the former president as saying “I don’t know what happened with the bomb threats. I know that it’s been taken over by illegal migrants.”
The Haitians are in Springfield legally.
Ratt drew this cartoon four years ago. It seems even closer today, and if you don’t differentiate between facts and opinions and between spin and lies, and try to make intelligent decisions about what’s going on, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I don’t know what lead time Garry Trudeau has for Doonesbury (AMS), but today’s strip — claiming US sources are in charge of disinformation — was certainly drawn before last week’s revelation that Russia pumped $10 million into a shadow company in this country to promote propaganda.
DOJ reports that China and Iran are also attempting to influence our coming elections, but not with the skill and resources Vladimir Putin is putting into it.
Tom the Dancing Bug suggests that little Donald is losing his grip on things, and, yes, this is intentional spin, but if you look through the humor and exaggeration, you’ll find reasonable back-up for Bolling’s parody.
Though it’s possible to have a good laugh and still find, on election day, that your point of view is in the minority.
Particularly since, as Matt Davies points out, the Electoral College system has created a situation where only a few states are considered to be in play. Others are either “gimmies” for one party or the other or have so few winner-take-all electoral votes that they won’t be a factor come November.
There have only been five times the winner of a presidential election received fewer popular votes than the opponent, but they’ve often been significant: Hayes’ win over Tilden ended Reconstruction and brought in Jim Crow, Bush over Gore gave us the Iraq War and destruction of the Middle East, and Trump over Clinton brought us to where we are today.
You are free to see that last one as a good thing, if you are against foreigners damaging American fenders.
Or, y’know, women’s bodily autonomy and whatever.
Juxtaposition of the Day
Some pro-Trump spin from Steve Kelley, who is careful to frame this as an issue of personal finance rather than trotting out “Bidenomics.” The stock market is up, unemployment is down and inflation is low enough that the Fed is lowering interest rates, so it’s hard to keep flogging the spectre of economic devastation.
On the other hand, as Wilcox points out, cost of living remains high, though she doesn’t blame Kamala Harris for that, shifting the blame instead onto a variety of factors, perhaps because she sees the economy in wider terms and perhaps because she’s in Sydney, where, as elsewhere in the world, the cost of living is high but has little to do with the American vice-president.
Anyway, my IRA has recovered, but if I didn’t have a good rent deal, I wouldn’t be able to live on my Social Security and the pittance we make here.
I blame the Australians.
Things are, as David Horsey suggests, looking good for Kamala Harris in the wake of the debate, and the combination of the moronic pet-eating nonsense and the Swift endorsement has, IMHO, had the effect of lifting the election out of the political-nerd realm and elevated it considerably into the public eye.
Adam Zyglis notes the diversity of Harris endorsements, but I suspect those who followed, and were impressed by, the Cheney endorsement were already significantly engaged, while having the most popular musician in the world step forward has brought new attention to the race.
BTW, the NY Post found a poll showing that Swift’s support will cost Harris votes, because of course they would.
According to the Post, only 8% say it would change their vote in Harris’s favor, while “a whopping 20% said they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘much less likely’ to vote for former President Donald Trump’s opponent now that Swift has spoken.”
According to the poll itself, however, 53% said it will help either a lot or a little, while a whopping four percent said it will hurt a lot or a little.
We report, you decide, based on what we report.
See Vance on CNN this morn ? He employed the Trump Doctrine rote for rote … don’t stop talking, keep telling lies, bounce around subjects, make sure you repeat what cannot be verified, and ensure the interviewer is baffled, not knowing where to begin to refute the BS issuing from your mouth. Not unlike drinking from a firehose. It’s getting old, though, isn’t it? The interviewer even had the same expression on her face as Biden during the first “debate”.
From the Post story – Forty-one percent — nearly 460 people — said the “Shake it Off” singer shouldn’t speak publicly about politics.
IMO, an American citizen, famous or not, has every right to “speak publicly about politics” whether it be Swift, James Wood, Colin Kaepernick, Laura Loomer, Joy Behar, or the fringe wackos “on both sides.” It’s up to the voters to “do their research” and make their decision. Unfortunately, many voters’ research is done as shown in Pastis’ Pearls Before Swine.
I thought Laura Loomer was a fringe wacko.
You’re right, Hank; my error.
It’s true that MSNBC has a liberal slant, however, comparing them to Fox is a stretch to making an even playing field, something you have previously noted is troubling in the media. Then, as you point out “But there is such a thing as truth, and there is such a thing as having a political viewpoint, and there is such a thing as deliberate slant. And there are lies.” And to my knowledge, MSNBC, while slanted at times, has never told actual lies to their viewers whereas Fox was fined millions for just that.