Matt Taibbi

nah it's easy you just ignore what the article actually says and call the author stupid

standard ILX (neo)liberal tactic

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Tennieldumdee.jpg

Reading Is Dumbdamental

dude forgot your beard, but has Shakey down p well

It's not that stations were wrong to denounce Trump's comments. He deserves it all. But he's not the only stupid, lying, corrupt politician in the world, which is the impression one could easily get watching certain stations these days.

yes, if they were born yesterday. which includes all of us except Dr Morbius so there.

The situation he's describing is actually more like this: one candidate continues - despite exceeding the imaginations of many, many people - to produce MAN BITES DOG material on not a weekly, not a daily, but on a multiple-times-per-day basis. This is the nominee of one of the two major parties in the country. The other candidate, and the party she represents, continue to be the subject of several DOG BITES MAN stories, followed up with quotes about paint drying and it being hot outside. But the need to fill column inches and airtime is a totally new thing that has never afflicted journalism before 2016, so this means that America is doomed.

One of these days our country will actually fall apart and I look forward to Matt's awesome 40-paragraph essay about how he saw it coming and he said so and it's everybody else's fault.

I'm sure you will live to see it

The other candidate! What will we call her after Nov 8?

also one of those DBM stories led to the resignation of three DNC officials, that's a good dog, here boy here boy

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/bg/Dave+walks+his+dog+yuEpWqafzD-l.jpg
DMB stories? I did what with what dog now?

too bad no msm orgs reported on the dnc email leaks so it remained in the right wing echo chamber and dws was never fired :( i guess taibbi was right

The other candidate!

Yes. To be a candidate for something you actually have to have a nonzero chance of achieving it. Jill Stein is a "candidate" for President like I am a "candidate" for Pope.

hey guys guess who you deserve

clearly the discourse of a rabid misanthropist w. nothing to say. better to take yr suffering in this world than the world to come i guess.

and dws was never fired

the fact-impaired do not suffer as much, i know

lol you don't understand anything what a great poster child for the far left. ignorant and self-righteous.

i don't know anything but what i don't know i feel v strongly about!

taibbi sucks ass

i remember liking him a lot in college after reading griftopia and some hilarious brooks/friedman take downs and being pissed at joe while reading this thread trying to tar him as a not-that-smart self-righteous macho "gonzo" dbag but he was totally right and i'm glad i have seen the light

i liked griftopia and some of his earlier stuff (and when i was younger i really liked the eXile - i even interview mark ames once) but this election season has scrambled the brains of the left commentariat for some reason - michael moore producing some equally head-scratchingly bad stuff recently.

xp i got caught up in his thing in 2009 but yeah i can't read him anymore. wayyy too heavy on the empty mythmaking / macho language. huge generalizations. not all that insightful. similar to a poster here now that i think about it.

taibbi sucks ass

what other sexual practices do u like to use as slurs (don't answer that)

i will though! go fuck yourself

anyway bye guys enjoy the Restoration

the answer to my question above is HILLZ! btw. The More Efficient, Mundane Evil.

can't believe ppl are slut shaming ass eaters

Talking about PRACTICE

Someone mention Groceries?

damnit i restrained myself from using my reflexive 'sucks balls'... didn't even think of the plight of the ass eaters

you are the ones who are the ball lickers

[tmi] i always interpreted eating ass as licking the rim & tonguing... literally sucking on a butthole never crossed my mind as an irl thing ppl do [/tmi]

Taibbi is talking about the clinton foundation story, which should be much bigger than it is, not the dncleaks stuff. But you wouldn't know it from this thread. and that's probably because the people in this thread haven't paid attention to the clinton foundation stuff, because of people not making a big deal of it in the media, which is precisely taibbi's point.

I kind of feel like the Clinton foundation story is suffering death by slow leak, combined with the fact that no one (that I know of anyway) has done a really good job of tying everything together.

yeah there was a bit of talk about that Daily Caller story in the election thread, but there's a limit to how seriously we can take a story that doesn't cross over from batshit mediaworld

the problem with the clinton foundation story is that there's no story yet. there is speculation - enough that i listened to a 45 minute NPR panel on the topic on Monday (they did a v poor job burying the story) and read numerous NYT stories on the topic (including back when the story first broke and it was about whether state approved arms deals in exchange for donations to the foundation). even the arms story was mostly speculation. it's an unsexy story (maybe some ppl got access to state bc of donations to a charitable foundation) and there isn't a smoking gun. despite that the media has, in their quixotic quest for parity, reported on every new detail.

like "should be much bigger than it is" - does anyone really think the media is not reporting sufficiently bc they're afraid of giving trump the election? the media cares about one thing - getting hits. anti clinton stories are great for driving traffic. they have reported and will continue to report as much as they can. but they can't make something from nothing.

There may or may not be something there, but I feel like I haven't seen anyone do a thorough, rigorous analysis of donations/patterns wrt favors and access. There are just people lined up on one side to say that any appearance of impropriety is obviously corruption of the worst kind and people lined up on the other to say there's clearly nothing there whatsoever.

Honestly the Clinton Foundation story is exactly what I meant re: DBM.

The incredibly boring and quotidian nature of the story ("career politician continues to be involved in personal non-profit activities while employed in high ranking government position" plus or minus "huge non profit foundation run by family of career politicians is probably corrupt in at least a couple ways") makes it very difficult to write any kind of compelling headlines about it. There also remains no smoking gun, even after all the dumps and leaks. Lastly, in order to be convinced by stories that allege that the highest foreign policy official in the Obama administration, other than POTUS himself, was in fact a wheelin' dealin' pay-for-play loose cannon, you'd have to already be convinced that Obama's foreign policy has been a giant shitshow. So of course Morbs is all over it, as is the (T)rump wing of the GOP.

it's definitely worth delving into but ppl pretending no one is investigating the clinton foundation is pretty disingenuous

yeah i just googled clinton foundation and found large articles on the topic from NYT, WaPost, WSJ, a recent op-ed from the Boston Globe, etc. it's not their fault that there aren't new developments every day. blame assange.

a 45 minute block of NPR programming!

I feel like "no one is covering important issue" is a codephrase for "no one is concentrating on the particular pieces of this thing that I feel we could spin into a controversy"

Obama's foreign war policy is just a standard imperial placeholder; i expect Clinton's to be more Col Kilgore

actually i expect nothing

only the fearless investigative journalists at Fox and Breitbart are willing to tackle it!

xxp

if trump wasn't a completely tone-deaf white nationalist psychopath and could avoid saying something insane any day that Hillary is in the news over some controversy then there would be a lot more scrutiny on her, but he is and he can't

There is scrutiny of her but like many posters have remarked there's no direct evidence of anything

interview

Obviously, some people want to ascribe the entire rise of Donald Trump 100 percent to racism, 100 percent to discontent within an aging white demographic that feels frustrated about changes in the world that they have no control over, but that’s really not entirely the story. That may be most of the story, but it’s not 100 percent of the story. As much as I can’t stand David Frum, he had a piece in the Atlantic that got into a lot of different issues that explain why Trump happened, from the failure of the Republican Party to really listen to their own base, to the abandonment of unions and working-class people by both parties, to the general disconnect between people who are out there really living their lives and the media and Washington and the donor class.

All of these things are major, major problems, and I don’t think they have been sufficiently investigated. The Trump story has really been laid out as, “He’s the bad guy, his supporters are evil, and let’s all look down on him,” and that’s that. Look, I agree that he’s awful and horrible and needs to be stopped, but we still need to understand why he’s happening, and I don’t think we’re doing a great job of that.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/science/2016/08/matt_taibbi_says_donald_trump_has_ruined_journalism.html

that's def true. but i'm not sure the MSM ever did a great job with the sort of deep explanation he desires. and he seems to think that the media not holding hillary clinton's feet to the fire is a consequence of their focus on pillorying (sp?) trump. but the MSM hasn't exactly held obama's feet to the fire in re. extralegal assassinations etc. so nothing they're doing (or not doing) seems notably out of character. sadly.

sorry, i meant, "sad!"

the abandonment of unions and working-class people by both parties

when Reagan proved the working class, including union members, would sell their birthright in exchange for a mess of reactionary-rhetoric pottage, the working class set themselves up for economic marginalization and voted themselves into wage stagnation hell.

look - taibbi types want to believe that trump is about economic anxiety bc it feeds into a narrative he already wants to believe is true. but gallup has studied the voters and they've found that not only do trump voters not correlate to economic anxiety, but they are actually voters who are doing above average economically. what trump voters correlate heavily to is racial anxiety. on some level these voters may be identifying culturally with economically struggling working class ppl, but they are not actually those people. it's a fantasy (shocking that right-wingers are engaging in fantasy). you can't just make up what something is about bc it fits with your pre-existing narrative. aka this is more of taibbi totally dropping the ball this election.