Heather Cox Richardson began her November 8 newsletter this way:
Social media has been flooded today with stories of Trump voters who are shocked to learn that tariffs will raise consumer prices as reporters are covering that information.
Yes, reporters are now covering that information. Why wasn’t it covered starting many weeks before the election?
One of the old justifications for tariffs was that they would bring factories home, but when the $3 billion shoe company Steve Madden announced yesterday it would reduce its imports from China by half to avoid Trump-promised tariffs, it said it will shift production not to the U.S., but to Cambodia, Vietnam, Mexico, and Brazil.
I’ve lost the link, but yesterday I read that a lot of consumer product companies are planning to stuff their U.S. warehouses with their Chinese-made products or components as fast as possible before the tariffs are imposed. But even if they are thinking of moving their manufacturing to the U.S., it’s going to take awhile to get new facilities up and running. In the meantime, consumers are going to get slammed.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s Chips and Science Act was already bringing much of manufacturing back to these shores without adding to inflation. I suspect most voters never heard of the Chips and Science Act. Now companies are scrambling to get Chips and Science Act deals finalized before the new Congress can repeal it. Whatever happens, next year Trump will take credit for the new jobs being created by Biden’s policies. There will be little reporting to correct the lie.
In Salon today, Amanda Marcotte noted that in states all across the country where voters backed Trump, they also voted for abortion rights, higher minimum wage, paid sick and family leave, and even to ban employers from forcing their employees to sit through right-wing or anti-union meetings. She points out that 12% of voters in Missouri voted both for abortion rights and for Trump.
Marcotte recalled that Catherine Rampell and Youyou Zhou of the Washington Post showed before the election that voters overwhelmingly preferred Harris’s policies to Trump’s if they didn’t know which candidate proposed them. An Ipsos/Reuters poll from October showed that voters who were misinformed about immigration, crime, and the economy tended to vote Republican, while those who knew the facts preferred Democrats. Many Americans turn for information to social media or to friends and family who traffic in conspiracy theories. As Angelo Carusone of Media Matters put it: “We have a country that is pickled in right-wing misinformation and rage.”
In the last post I discussed the failures of media. There is more commentary on those failures now. Let’s begin with Michael Tomasky at The New Republic. I recommend reading the whole thing. Here is his basic premise:
Today, the right-wing media—Fox News (and the entire News Corp.), Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, iHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel), the Bott Radio Network (Christian radio), Elon Musk’s X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, and much more—sets the news agenda in this country. And they fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win.
Let me say that again, in case it got lost: Today, the right-wing media sets the news agenda in this country. Not The New York Times. Not The Washington Post (which bent over backwards to exert no influence when Jeff Bezos pulled the paper’s Harris endorsement). Not CBS, NBC, and ABC. The agenda is set by all the outlets I listed in the above paragraph. Even the mighty New York Times follows in its wake, aping the tone they set disturbingly often.
I agree with him. It’s particularly obvious whenever mainstream reporters interview Democrats. The questions will all reflect right-wing media framing of the issues. Consider the interview of Kamala Harris by CNN’s Dana Bash, of which I wrote,
I started to watch that CNN interview with Dana Bash, but bailed before it was over because the questions were stupid. It was all “gotcha” (Why did you flip flop on fracking?) or bits of right-wing talking points, re-framed as questions. Instead of asking about her energy policies, Bash tries to trip her up by grilling her for changing a position on fracking. As a viewer, I found that annoying and tiresome. If I were the candidate I’d be frustrated also.
As for news coverage, even those who tune in to the standard network nightly news or scan the front page of a newspaper wouldn’t have been told anything substantive about Trump’s vs. Harris’s positions on the issues. But now reporters are shifting into “what to expect in the new Trump administration” mode, so they’re finally explaining what Trump’s tariffs are likely to do to inflation. Thanks loads, guys.
And Dan Froomkin at Press Watch echoes what Michael Tomasky wrote. Just go read it. See also Kate Riga at TPM. Mainstream media is doing an absolutely terrible job of informing news consumers about the issues and candidates’ policies, as opposed to the horse race and what nasty thing one of them said about the other that day. And the issues are being entirely framed by right-wing propaganda rather than actual facts.
Signs of the times — Trump is, apparently, refusing to agree to the standard ethics code regarding conflicts of interest, which is holding up the transition process.
While the transition team’s leadership has privately drafted an ethics code and a conflict-of-interest statement governing its staff, those documents do not include language, required under the law, that explains how Mr. Trump himself will address conflicts of interest during his presidency.
Since Mr. Trump created his transition team in August, it has refused to participate in the normal handoff process, which typically begins months before the election.
It has missed multiple deadlines for signing required agreements governing the process. That has prevented Mr. Trump’s transition team from participating in national security briefings or gaining access to federal agencies to begin the complicated work of preparing to take control of the government on Jan. 20, 2025.
Not that he abided by the “conflicts of interest” codes in his first term. Now I take it he doesn’t want to be constrained by having to pretend he’s not using the power of office to advance his personal interests.
CNN reported that Pentagon officials are actively discussing what to do if Trump issues an illegal order, such as shooting peaceful protesters Trump doesn’t like. They’re also anticipating he will fire the top brass and replace them with his flunkies.
One of my favorite psychics found a guy on Threads who claims the election was hacked. He has all these credentials in the anti/hacking world. He says it was done by injecting code into the tabulation machines at the county level, months before the election occurred. The code only shifts the results during specific dates/times, thus bypassing validation checks that are supposed to be run on these machines. He says the hack can be easily demonstrated by comparing hand-counted results versus the official tabulation, in a couple of districts.
The bomb threats were made to break the chain of custody, thus calling into question any future hand counting.
Watch it here, starts at 8:45. He's sent copies of his claims to Marc Elias, Fetterman, Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow.
All the psychics I follow were dumbfounded that Trump won. This is the first bit of evidence I've seen that they might actually have been right.
I don't know enough about how voting machines work to judge how plausible this is or how it might have been carried out in multiple states. Perhaps someone who does know stuff about voting machines will evaluate it.
I don't know much about them either but Fox News paid $787.5 million for defaming one company over the 2020 US elections.
Dominion’s C.E.O.: We Settled the Lawsuit Against Fox News, but We’re Not Done Yet
Also the "hacker" needs to explain how several different companies were hacked.
Maybe Mossad or the CIA could do it.
I'm not trying to offend because I like your posts. A psychic is not a reliable source. I agree with passing off the information to someone who CAN evaluate the basis of the claim.
If Maddow runs with it, I will back a mandatory investigation. Her team is nothing short of incredible as far as research goes. Her last book had twenty or thirty pages of citations – most of them print that had never been committed to a digital (searchable) format.
Read it in the original, here.
People gave way too much credit that Rush Limbaugh had a handle on the truth. He, when cornered, would say he was an entertainer. I am quite confident this was on the advice of an attorney though that is speculation on my part. An entertainer has some degree of a literary license like a psychic. In fact. Rush was more a propogandist, one who played golf with Trump before he died. A con man who started on A.M. radio whose show contained advertisement many times from governmental agencies. Now that we have real fascists coming to power, do you still fear the feminazis more than the real ones? Was Rush just playing a bit of a misogynist? We know to some he was a great messenger of truth. Others see him as a purveyor of hate and propaganda. In hindsight, the later appears to be the truth, the former but a thin facade. Birds of a feather play golf together or something like that.
I do hope people read Ben Rhodes's guest essay to the NYT. The Hill picked up on it and linked the essay. It appears to me to be head and shoulders above any of the others for an assessment of the true situation and needed course of action.
The effect of Trumps tariff proposal was well covered by CNBC and severely criticized by the Wall Street Journal by a panel of noted economists. I guess that is about as well as hiding it from those in Trump's Lala Land. They tend to avoid both bubbles.
Opinion | Democrats Walked Into a Trap Republicans Set for Them – The New York Times
This discussion reminded me of a story written by Robert A. Heinlein in 1940. (If This Goes On) No, I'm not that old but the story resembles the problem we face with a scoundrel in power and the media compromised. The tale is one of revolution to replace a corrupt theocracy and restore secular democracy. Part of the process requires the rebels to undermine the popular and unquestionable conviction that the dictator is appointed by God. And the government controls all media who can't and won't challenge his divinity.
The setting is the future, which could almost be our present time. The theocracy is run by "a knothead with a loud voice, an IQ around 90, hair in his ears, dirty underwear, and a lot of ambition. He's too lazy to be a farmer, too stupid to be an engineer, too unreliable to be a banker – but brother can he pray!" (Substitute "pray" with "lie.")
The two protaganists had been soldiers for the dictator. They joined the resistance to overthrow the theocracy and restore a secular democracy. (The USA and our Constitution.) One of the characters becomes a big-shot in the propaganda department. It's essential to undermine the popular faith in the tyrant. Let me step away from the fiction to address the factual situation.
1) The majority of Trump voters believe stuff that is not objectively true.
Examples: Foreign countries have emptied their jails and asylums to deliver human monsters to rape and pillage. Democrats stole the 2020 election. Tariffs are paid by foreign governments and will not affect prices. Nobody died on J6 – the rioters are "patriots." Trump will pardon them. The criminal charges against Trump are all fabrications, including the written evidence and testimony by Trump officials. Vaccines don't work and are poisoning Americans. (You can add fluoridation.) Climate change is a myth invented by the Chinese. I can go on.
2) The mainstream media is compromised in several ways.
The first problem is that they are businesses first – out to make a profit. When content might adversely affect profits, the message is altered to prevent a backlash. Second, we've recently seen in the open what also happens behind closed doors. The owner(s) can and will block a message they personally oppose. I think the editors also know how to keep the owner happy and headlines and content are written to satisfy the owner's bias rather than the truth. Bothsiderism is also a mechanism to report the truth and simultaneously slant the story to prevent an angry call from the conservative owner of an "honest" publisher. (I'm thinking WaPo and NY Times but they are not alone.)
3) The Trump voters (mostly) do not consume news or facts from reliable sources (relying on people with education and experience on the subject.) That Fox paid 800 million in damages for lies about the 2020 election didn't make a dent in their ratings. Many conservative voters are deliberately oblivious – making ethical decisions is too much effort. Others are "informed" by lies and propaganda they prefer to objective reality. But they are like a kid's balloon floating in the wind untethered from anything substantial. You might as well print "Sucker" on the balloon because they might believe anything. That can be exploited.
4. Social media, exploited ruthlessly, can shatter the Axis of Evil using the willful ignorance of MAGA types against them. (We keep trying to use truth and facts, weapons they are immune to. They gobble up rumors and lies like catnip.)
In 2016, the Russians may have used social media and micro-targeting to affect select voter groups with disinformation directed at the group that would eagerly embrace and act upon the message (in their voting.) Sometimes the message was intended to prevent a person from voting by undermining Clinton with a BS lie, tailored for that voter. I don't have the source at hand but Russians reportedly acquired a dump of confidential Facebook information which they could cull to identify individual targets by their hot-button issue. Why can't Democrats do that?
I'm talking about a think tank, not associated directly with the Democratic Party. It would have to be funded pretty well and secretly. I don't know how much and where data on conservatives who use social media could be had, but I suspect it can. For a price. There are also programs (bots) that harvest that data – a lot could be harvested in three years, I think. That's the basis for doing targeted propaganda. We're not trying to persuade with facts and statistics that stand trutfully in opposition to their fantasyland. If they are a rabid antivaxer, a story that Trump developed the COVID vax and he secretly supports vaccines will flip that voter out. If the GOP successor (Vance? Don Jr.?) can be identified, he can be the subject. The point is: if we know their fetish, we manipulate them on it. Likewise abortion. Likewise white nationalism. Likewise anti-immigrant kooks.
And I'm not a nice person. We play by the same rules as they do. That means if a fabrication will work, we lie. If we can turn factions against each other, we promote that war on Twitter, on FB, on Truth Social. I'm amazed they have played nicely with each other this long. The stage is set for a power grab in four years (assuming the Constitution can withstand Trump and there are elections in four years.)
These voters are not smart or disciplined. They are predisposed to reject evidence and accept whatever BS pushes their button. They have no defenses against BS because they can't do critical thinking (by choice) and their reactions are strictly knee-jerk. The algorithms on social media aren't set up to filter out deceptions – they amplify what the audiences react to. The conspiracy nut spreads BS more enthusiastically than a farmer spreads fertilizer. Properly done, an attack directly transmitted to one million could reach ten million.
IMO, there's no way to persuade these people to adopt critical thinking. IMO, there's no way the consumer of mainstream media can straighten out how facts are presented. The shift to social media is a boon to manipulators. If that's the weapon at hand, let's use it. If you are put off by my lack of scruples, I have a short clip for you that applies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v010HXpfFSA
I only suggest we play by their rules. When they want to play fair, I'm open to it.
I'm with ya, Doug
One of the things that I think is under-discussed is the total corruption of the Republican Party. They'll lie about everything, and anything, and, as long as they stay on the same page, it looks like he-said-she-said. "Of *course* the Democrats call Trump a convicted criminal! But Republicans tell us that's bullshit!"
So, like, I see one person say "Dems expected the courts to do politics for them." No, Dems expected the courts would convict him, and the Republicans would agree, can't vote for a convicted felon, or someone who stole super-important national security secrets, or tried to overturn the peaceful transfer of power."
But the Republicans just roared, "How dare Democrats do this to him!"
I think the worst part, is, the media was either roaring "he's innocent!" or wishy washy, bringing on "He's innocent!" screamers for balance, or carefully avoiding to say just how blatant the evidence was.
What would *you* think if that was the debate you heard? One side said it's a mountain, another side "could be a mountain, a hill, who knows, really? But Biden is definitely a butthole snrch."
You'd probably be "Big hill or mountain," and it'd probably surprise most folks to realize they were talking about the Grand Canyon. And, of course, the scenario is a joke, but the principle is there. Like, everyone said that Trump is expected to dismiss investigations into him, but no one said "…an unprecedented act, and an exceptionally corrupt case of self-dealing."
But they should have said that every time. If you don't report that, your readers don't have the truth. Of course, if they do provide context, they lose "access". When the news makers have the news reporters by the metaphorical short hairs, terrible things happen, but, the Republicans have shown us the limits. 400k Covid dead, and no one cares. "This time, I'll kill 400 thousand Covid dead, and 87 Mexicans."
"Why 87 Mexicans?"
"See, I told you no one cares about $400,000 Covid dead."
Old joke, but, chilling to me, today.
In Trump-world, the members go to preachers to get healed and medical professionals to get preached at. Enter RFK Jr. You take the story from there. I won't.
It is reported that Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley will not play in Trump version 2.0.
Is help getting hard to find or is the help just wising up?
Who would want a lead role in a horror story like this one?
The supporting cast did not fare well in version 1.0. Pence almost went out dangling. Musk will bounce with him though. He can always escape to Mars if needed.
In the '70s I had a subscription to The Federal Times. On page two of the paper there was a list of bills before congress that would affect federal employees with the a list of those members of congress opposing or supporting the bills. It seemed like a good idea.
The Federal Times also distributed, for a dollar, a copy of The Malek Manual (which was not written by Fred Malek) that explained how to play the federal bureaucracy.
The Federal Times was published by The Army Times Publishing Company.
"In the meantime, consumers are going to get slammed."
I'm not sure Stump will do large scale tariffs or deportation of 15 million "illegals" or much of anything his lying ass promised during the campaign. I'd wager the only thing he will defiantly get started on asap are tax cuts for rich folk and corporations. I'm sure he'll pardon the J6 cop crushing thugs and will for sure shut down federal prosecutions against him. But most of his "policy" promises are just like everything else he says, it's all word salad bullshit. Now if they control the house than whatever socially regressive laws they can dream up and pass and get through the senate Stump will certainly sign. I just don't really think massive tariffs or large scale deportations will be part of it but who really knows with diaper don! Those tariffs and deportations will certainly cripple the economy, I don't want to see that but maybe a little hard times will convince the 10% or so of Stump voters (the ones that voted for Biden last time) that can be swayed that Stump is an imbecile. Maybe not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXkN3nJyWEA
A big difference between Trump I and Trump II is that in 2016 Trump entered the White House with no clue how anything worked or what precisely he was going to do. And for the most part his White House staff included enough people who were more loyal to institutions than to him who limited what he did. Also toward the end the Democrats controlled Congress, however tenuously, which limited him quite a bit. None of that will be true beginning in January. He’s surrounded himself with his own flunkies who are ready to do whatever he wants. Republicans control the Senate and probably will control the House. There will be no guardrails.
One exception on iHeart Media, Keith Olbermann.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-countdown-with-keith-olbe-99705496/
narrator: those voters did not, in fact, learn. the hard way or any other. they figured out a way to blame it all on the libs.