Today in Fascism
- Thread starter Hüsker Dü
- Start date
espola protects this evil crimal empire. Husker Du Du says, "anyone but Trump." Scared little bitches have much to be afraid of. espola is their full time their fact checker on the forum and makes sure to call me a liar from time to time. His influence is shit now. Dad 4 is total toast. Where is Daddy? Total POS WHO came on here telling all of you to obey the boss so you could keep your job. He didn't give two shits about crush and his family. These men will most likely go to hell for the harm they caused. I don't know what, where or WHO will go to hell, but I'm not thank God. Total losers WHO gave killer advice and sold us all out with their lies. They will pay for their crimes against humanity.
Hüsker Dü
DA
3.1M views · 118K reactions | lol #lipsync #fyp | Bigsky Smallworld | Bigsky Smallworld · Original audio
lol #lipsync #fyp. Bigsky Smallworld · Original audio
www.facebook.com
3.1M views · 118K reactions | lol #lipsync #fyp | Bigsky Smallworld | Bigsky Smallworld · Original audio
lol #lipsync #fyp. Bigsky Smallworld · Original audio
The Sheriff's lying statement --3.1M views · 118K reactions | lol #lipsync #fyp | Bigsky Smallworld | Bigsky Smallworld · Original audio
lol #lipsync #fyp. Bigsky Smallworld · Original audio
Sheriff Clifford: Kuna Police Lawsuit Settlement
From Sheriff Matt Clifford: Earlier this week, we settled a lawsuit with Mr. Heikkola, stemming from an incident in January 2023. It wasn’t our best day. It is the expectation that Ada County deputies perform to the best of their abilities every day — while keeping people’s constitutional rights...
adacounty.id.gov
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
The threat to democratic rule has been aided and abetted by the MSM. There's no doubt now. Below is another great post by Public that addresses the media's role in the erosion of democratic rule. The point made years ago by political theorist Carl Schmitt about how to determine who is in charge is brilliant and shows exactly what the elites in the US attempt to do whenever possible. The latter point he references below (in post 2 due to length) is "what constitutes a crisis and how it should be handled".
-----
On this latter point, a German political theorist named Carl Schmitt famously argued that a nation’s ultimate authority is the person or group that “decides on the exception.” In other words, an individual or institution is the true ruler of a society if they can suspend the normal order, declare emergencies, and determine how the law should be applied.
“The exception is more interesting than the rule,” Schmitt wrote. “The rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything... In the exception, the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition.”
The declaration of an emergency or crisis establishes the political order because it is in this “state of exception” that power is made clear. True sovereignty lies in the authority to overstep or suspend norms and laws.
-----
The Media Think They Run The Country. Maybe They Do.
We used to be ruled by kings. Now we’re governed by the chattering class.
ALEX GUTENTAG AND MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER
JUL 5
Over the last few days, we, like many others, have observed that Joe Biden appears to lack the mental capacity for the job of president. And, we noted, this is a problem because Americans don’t want unelected, deep state bureaucrats running the White House. That’s tyranny, not democracy.
But Biden has repeatedly made clear that he intends to stay in the race. “I’m running,” he told supporters. “I’m the Democratic Party’s nominee. No one is pushing me out.”
Of course, Biden could still drop out before Election Day, which is four months away. The New York Times and others have published rumors that he might do that, including in a July 3 story “Biden Tells Allies He Knows He Has Only Days to Salvage Candidacy.” But over the last few days, Biden and his aides have strenuously denied those reports.
And yet, the media won’t let it go. They’re acting outraged that Biden is moving forward, as though the decision about whether he will compete for reelection were theirs rather than his. “Why Biden must withdraw,” exclaimed The Economist in the story for its cover, which consisted of a picture of the presidential seal on a walker.
Day after day, all of the mainstream news organizations, from the New York Times to the Washington Post to CNN are not simply urging Biden to step down, they are plotting how it should be done. “Democratic allies, strategists and elected officials are in growing agreement about the conditions required for Biden to step aside,” wrote the Post yesterday.
The media are also blurring the line between themselves and President Biden as the head of state. The most dramatic example of this is yesterday’s editorial in the Washington Post with the headline, “What if Biden spoke these words?” It is a fantasy speech by Biden announcing he won’t run for re-election.
“My season of service is nearing its close,” writes the Post’s fictional Biden. “This was a hard truth to face. But it is the natural course of things — as evident as the progression from spring to summer, from fall to winter. This is why I have decided to withdraw from the campaign for president of the United States.”
While some are promoting tonight’s interview by ABC’s George Stephanopolous and Biden as a “make-or-break” interview, the truth is that the media’s mind is already made up.
The media are so confident that they will force Biden to step down that they are now discussing his replacement. “Why Kamala Harris is a stronger candidate than you think,” explains MSNBC today.
Reporters have dropped all pretense of being concerned about democratic process. “Here,” wrote New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait on the Fourth of July, “is what I think should happen. A small group of party leaders — say, Biden, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Jen O’Malley Dillon — should decide on a new candidate over the next week. The group would present its choice and instruct delegates to ratify the nomination at the convention.”
Editorial boards and journalists are, of course, entitled to write what they want to write. But there is something unseemly about a newspaper play acting as president of the United States. Like so many others in the media, the editorial board writers seem deeply confused about their role.
And this is hardly the first time. The media was so outraged by the election of Donald Trump in 2016 that it waged multiple misinformation campaigns alleging wild conspiracy theories, chief among them that Trump was a Manchurian candidate controlled by Russia, and that Russia was responsible for his election. That conspiracy theory resulted in Senate hearings and a special prosecutor investigation by Robert Mueller.
After Mueller decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge Trump or his campaign with collusion, the media wouldn’t let it go, and continued to suggest that there was a conspiracy and that Trump simply hid it.
Or consider the Hunter Biden laptop. The news media spread a conspiracy theory in October 2020 that it was the result of a Russian “hack and leak” operation. There was never any evidence for this. And yet the mainstream news media continued to suggest there was some secret or hidden information about the laptop that incriminated Trump, thereby distracting attention from the incriminating evidence that Biden had worked with his addict son to run a vast influence peddling operation.
Over the last 18 months, we have published dozens of articles about the U.S. Intelligence Community including the CIA, FBI, and DHS abusing its power to frame Trump as a Russian asset and to cover up Biden’s influence-peddling. Such acts are unethical, illegal, and a profound threat to democracy.
We have also documented the campaign of lawfare against Trump, waged by leading Democrats, aimed at incarcerating him and preventing him from becoming president. This campaign has involved close allies to Biden and major Democratic Party-allied organizations.
But the abuses of power by the Intelligence Community and the Democratic Party would have gone nowhere had the news media, en masse, not encouraged them. In the same way that the IC and Democratic Party violated the boundary between government and politics and politics and law, respectively, the news media has violated the boundary between itself and the government.
Political theorists have referred to the media for centuries as the “fourth estate.” In Europe, the fourth estate stood in contrast to the three centers of power: the people, the clergy, and the nobility. In the United States, the fourth state stands in contrast to the three branches of government: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.
But today, the media has achieved new levels of power. It is arguably more powerful than the government itself. It certainly acts that way. Why is that? What has led the media to become so powerful that its representatives act as though they should decide who is allowed to be president and who isn’t? And what will it take to shrink its power back to size?
-----
On this latter point, a German political theorist named Carl Schmitt famously argued that a nation’s ultimate authority is the person or group that “decides on the exception.” In other words, an individual or institution is the true ruler of a society if they can suspend the normal order, declare emergencies, and determine how the law should be applied.
“The exception is more interesting than the rule,” Schmitt wrote. “The rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything... In the exception, the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition.”
The declaration of an emergency or crisis establishes the political order because it is in this “state of exception” that power is made clear. True sovereignty lies in the authority to overstep or suspend norms and laws.
-----
The Media Think They Run The Country. Maybe They Do.
We used to be ruled by kings. Now we’re governed by the chattering class.
ALEX GUTENTAG AND MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER
JUL 5
Over the last few days, we, like many others, have observed that Joe Biden appears to lack the mental capacity for the job of president. And, we noted, this is a problem because Americans don’t want unelected, deep state bureaucrats running the White House. That’s tyranny, not democracy.
But Biden has repeatedly made clear that he intends to stay in the race. “I’m running,” he told supporters. “I’m the Democratic Party’s nominee. No one is pushing me out.”
Of course, Biden could still drop out before Election Day, which is four months away. The New York Times and others have published rumors that he might do that, including in a July 3 story “Biden Tells Allies He Knows He Has Only Days to Salvage Candidacy.” But over the last few days, Biden and his aides have strenuously denied those reports.
And yet, the media won’t let it go. They’re acting outraged that Biden is moving forward, as though the decision about whether he will compete for reelection were theirs rather than his. “Why Biden must withdraw,” exclaimed The Economist in the story for its cover, which consisted of a picture of the presidential seal on a walker.
Day after day, all of the mainstream news organizations, from the New York Times to the Washington Post to CNN are not simply urging Biden to step down, they are plotting how it should be done. “Democratic allies, strategists and elected officials are in growing agreement about the conditions required for Biden to step aside,” wrote the Post yesterday.
The media are also blurring the line between themselves and President Biden as the head of state. The most dramatic example of this is yesterday’s editorial in the Washington Post with the headline, “What if Biden spoke these words?” It is a fantasy speech by Biden announcing he won’t run for re-election.
“My season of service is nearing its close,” writes the Post’s fictional Biden. “This was a hard truth to face. But it is the natural course of things — as evident as the progression from spring to summer, from fall to winter. This is why I have decided to withdraw from the campaign for president of the United States.”
While some are promoting tonight’s interview by ABC’s George Stephanopolous and Biden as a “make-or-break” interview, the truth is that the media’s mind is already made up.
The media are so confident that they will force Biden to step down that they are now discussing his replacement. “Why Kamala Harris is a stronger candidate than you think,” explains MSNBC today.
Reporters have dropped all pretense of being concerned about democratic process. “Here,” wrote New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait on the Fourth of July, “is what I think should happen. A small group of party leaders — say, Biden, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Jen O’Malley Dillon — should decide on a new candidate over the next week. The group would present its choice and instruct delegates to ratify the nomination at the convention.”
Editorial boards and journalists are, of course, entitled to write what they want to write. But there is something unseemly about a newspaper play acting as president of the United States. Like so many others in the media, the editorial board writers seem deeply confused about their role.
And this is hardly the first time. The media was so outraged by the election of Donald Trump in 2016 that it waged multiple misinformation campaigns alleging wild conspiracy theories, chief among them that Trump was a Manchurian candidate controlled by Russia, and that Russia was responsible for his election. That conspiracy theory resulted in Senate hearings and a special prosecutor investigation by Robert Mueller.
After Mueller decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge Trump or his campaign with collusion, the media wouldn’t let it go, and continued to suggest that there was a conspiracy and that Trump simply hid it.
Or consider the Hunter Biden laptop. The news media spread a conspiracy theory in October 2020 that it was the result of a Russian “hack and leak” operation. There was never any evidence for this. And yet the mainstream news media continued to suggest there was some secret or hidden information about the laptop that incriminated Trump, thereby distracting attention from the incriminating evidence that Biden had worked with his addict son to run a vast influence peddling operation.
Over the last 18 months, we have published dozens of articles about the U.S. Intelligence Community including the CIA, FBI, and DHS abusing its power to frame Trump as a Russian asset and to cover up Biden’s influence-peddling. Such acts are unethical, illegal, and a profound threat to democracy.
We have also documented the campaign of lawfare against Trump, waged by leading Democrats, aimed at incarcerating him and preventing him from becoming president. This campaign has involved close allies to Biden and major Democratic Party-allied organizations.
But the abuses of power by the Intelligence Community and the Democratic Party would have gone nowhere had the news media, en masse, not encouraged them. In the same way that the IC and Democratic Party violated the boundary between government and politics and politics and law, respectively, the news media has violated the boundary between itself and the government.
Political theorists have referred to the media for centuries as the “fourth estate.” In Europe, the fourth estate stood in contrast to the three centers of power: the people, the clergy, and the nobility. In the United States, the fourth state stands in contrast to the three branches of government: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.
But today, the media has achieved new levels of power. It is arguably more powerful than the government itself. It certainly acts that way. Why is that? What has led the media to become so powerful that its representatives act as though they should decide who is allowed to be president and who isn’t? And what will it take to shrink its power back to size?
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<p. 2>
Emergencies Show Who’s Really In Charge
There is a long tradition of acknowledging the media’s power on both the Left and Right. Philosopher Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “the medium is the message” in 1964, theorizing that the medium has a greater impact than its content. Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman analyzed the media’s role in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent, arguing that the mass media serves a propaganda function in shaping values and behavior, representing the views of the foreign policy establishment, and limiting real discourse and debate.
But these and other analyses still understate the power of the media. In truth, the media play a dominant role in governance. This includes and goes beyond shaping how the public and policymakers think about problems and solutions, determining whether particular political candidates are acceptable or unacceptable, and deciding what constitutes a crisis and how it should be handled.
On this latter point, a German political theorist named Carl Schmitt famously argued that a nation’s ultimate authority is the person or group that “decides on the exception.” In other words, an individual or institution is the true ruler of a society if they can suspend the normal order, declare emergencies, and determine how the law should be applied.
“The exception is more interesting than the rule,” Schmitt wrote. “The rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything... In the exception, the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition.”
The declaration of an emergency or crisis establishes the political order because it is in this “state of exception” that power is made clear. True sovereignty lies in the authority to overstep or suspend norms and laws.
Schmitt, like other leading German thinkers of his era, including Martin Heidegger, is tainted by his association with the Nazis. But, also like Heidegger, Schmitt’s analytical framework has been picked up by many on the Left, even as most commenters, including the two of us, strenuously reject how the two men sometimes applied their ideas.
The influential Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, for example, built on Schmitt’s theories to argue, in his 2005 book State of Exception, that the “state of exception” has become a “paradigm of government” in modern democracies.
In other words, governments rule by declaring everything a “crisis” or an “emergency,” including even slow-moving, long-term problems like climate change.
The media hasn’t always been the sovereign. That role, traditionally, has belonged to the head of state. Schmitt’s theory of the sovereign allows for sovereignty to change between people and institutions as political and social circumstances evolve. This is why, at times, presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt have clearly been sovereign rulers. At other times though, like in the early part of the 20th Century, the news media in the form of “yellow journalism” drove the US into foreign wars, and played a key role in electing presidents.
There are moments in recent history when sovereign power has reverted back to the head of state. After 9/11, for example, President George W. Bush used a state of exception to invade Iraq. The administration clearly led the charge for the invasion. Vice President Dick Cheney and his aides manipulated the CIA and the New York Times. And then-Secretary of State Colin Powell manipulated the foreign policy establishment.
But this period was relatively brief, lasting under six years. The botched US occupation of Iraq allowed the media to seize back control. By 2007, the media had chosen Barack Obama as the favored Democratic presidential candidate over, first, Hillary Clinton and, second, John McCain.
Yet the election of Donald Trump in 2016 signaled that the news media was losing control. Since then, the press has behaved as though we are in a constant emergency. Fascism is always on the horizon if Trump is not defeated or imprisoned, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC have argued for years. The constant threat of a far-right dictatorship provides a continual basis to attack and erode our democracy in the name of saving it.
Time and again, media elites feel entitled to decide when there should be an exception to democratic rights, rules, and proceedings. During Covid-19, for instance, it was the mainstream media that demanded and then maintained a state of exception. The media relentlessly misled the public and engaged in journalistic malfeasance to prolong lockdowns, keep school closed, and demand vaccine mandates.
Rochelle Walensky, then-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, notably said in 2022 that she got crucial information about Covid vaccines from the news media. “When the CNN feed came that it was 95% effective, the vaccine, so many of us wanted it to be helpful, so many of us wanted to say, ‘Ok, this is our ticket out.’”
Continued Walensky, “Nobody said ‘waning… this vaccine is going to work, oh maybe it will wear off.’ Nobody said, ‘well what if it’s not as potent against the next variant?’”
In this instance, Walensky admitted that her primary source of information was the media. And she suggested that she could not be responsible for her agency’s actions because journalists and commentators did not warn her that vaccine efficacy would wane.
Many times during Covid, the media shaped public behavior and fears before government bureaucracies issued recommendations. And the public’s consent to extreme measures depended on consistent misreporting about Covid risks. In this way, policy followed the hysteria of the media and not the other way around.
The press has similarly spearheaded the effort to suspend and erode constitutional rights in decrying alleged “mis-” and “disinformation” online. After 2016, journalists decided that one of our most fundamental legal protections was a threat to their business and to their monopoly on public opinion. Unrestricted free speech online, the media argued, led to hate, violence, and Russian interference. Government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security would likely not have been able to engage in mass censorship operations had the media not declared a state of exception for the First Amendment.
Emergencies Show Who’s Really In Charge
There is a long tradition of acknowledging the media’s power on both the Left and Right. Philosopher Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “the medium is the message” in 1964, theorizing that the medium has a greater impact than its content. Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman analyzed the media’s role in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent, arguing that the mass media serves a propaganda function in shaping values and behavior, representing the views of the foreign policy establishment, and limiting real discourse and debate.
But these and other analyses still understate the power of the media. In truth, the media play a dominant role in governance. This includes and goes beyond shaping how the public and policymakers think about problems and solutions, determining whether particular political candidates are acceptable or unacceptable, and deciding what constitutes a crisis and how it should be handled.
On this latter point, a German political theorist named Carl Schmitt famously argued that a nation’s ultimate authority is the person or group that “decides on the exception.” In other words, an individual or institution is the true ruler of a society if they can suspend the normal order, declare emergencies, and determine how the law should be applied.
“The exception is more interesting than the rule,” Schmitt wrote. “The rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything... In the exception, the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition.”
The declaration of an emergency or crisis establishes the political order because it is in this “state of exception” that power is made clear. True sovereignty lies in the authority to overstep or suspend norms and laws.
Schmitt, like other leading German thinkers of his era, including Martin Heidegger, is tainted by his association with the Nazis. But, also like Heidegger, Schmitt’s analytical framework has been picked up by many on the Left, even as most commenters, including the two of us, strenuously reject how the two men sometimes applied their ideas.
The influential Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, for example, built on Schmitt’s theories to argue, in his 2005 book State of Exception, that the “state of exception” has become a “paradigm of government” in modern democracies.
In other words, governments rule by declaring everything a “crisis” or an “emergency,” including even slow-moving, long-term problems like climate change.
The media hasn’t always been the sovereign. That role, traditionally, has belonged to the head of state. Schmitt’s theory of the sovereign allows for sovereignty to change between people and institutions as political and social circumstances evolve. This is why, at times, presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt have clearly been sovereign rulers. At other times though, like in the early part of the 20th Century, the news media in the form of “yellow journalism” drove the US into foreign wars, and played a key role in electing presidents.
There are moments in recent history when sovereign power has reverted back to the head of state. After 9/11, for example, President George W. Bush used a state of exception to invade Iraq. The administration clearly led the charge for the invasion. Vice President Dick Cheney and his aides manipulated the CIA and the New York Times. And then-Secretary of State Colin Powell manipulated the foreign policy establishment.
But this period was relatively brief, lasting under six years. The botched US occupation of Iraq allowed the media to seize back control. By 2007, the media had chosen Barack Obama as the favored Democratic presidential candidate over, first, Hillary Clinton and, second, John McCain.
Yet the election of Donald Trump in 2016 signaled that the news media was losing control. Since then, the press has behaved as though we are in a constant emergency. Fascism is always on the horizon if Trump is not defeated or imprisoned, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC have argued for years. The constant threat of a far-right dictatorship provides a continual basis to attack and erode our democracy in the name of saving it.
Time and again, media elites feel entitled to decide when there should be an exception to democratic rights, rules, and proceedings. During Covid-19, for instance, it was the mainstream media that demanded and then maintained a state of exception. The media relentlessly misled the public and engaged in journalistic malfeasance to prolong lockdowns, keep school closed, and demand vaccine mandates.
Rochelle Walensky, then-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, notably said in 2022 that she got crucial information about Covid vaccines from the news media. “When the CNN feed came that it was 95% effective, the vaccine, so many of us wanted it to be helpful, so many of us wanted to say, ‘Ok, this is our ticket out.’”
Continued Walensky, “Nobody said ‘waning… this vaccine is going to work, oh maybe it will wear off.’ Nobody said, ‘well what if it’s not as potent against the next variant?’”
In this instance, Walensky admitted that her primary source of information was the media. And she suggested that she could not be responsible for her agency’s actions because journalists and commentators did not warn her that vaccine efficacy would wane.
Many times during Covid, the media shaped public behavior and fears before government bureaucracies issued recommendations. And the public’s consent to extreme measures depended on consistent misreporting about Covid risks. In this way, policy followed the hysteria of the media and not the other way around.
The press has similarly spearheaded the effort to suspend and erode constitutional rights in decrying alleged “mis-” and “disinformation” online. After 2016, journalists decided that one of our most fundamental legal protections was a threat to their business and to their monopoly on public opinion. Unrestricted free speech online, the media argued, led to hate, violence, and Russian interference. Government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security would likely not have been able to engage in mass censorship operations had the media not declared a state of exception for the First Amendment.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<p. 3>
The Media Are Dead! Long Live The Media!
It’s clear that the media is not respecting proper boundaries. They are inappropriately acting as though they are one and the same as the president of the United States, even writing his withdrawal speech for him. And they are acting like the delegates for the Democratic Party, deciding who should replace him.
But these are also signs of desperation. The media has lost control. Biden is not doing what they want him to do. All they can offer him are promises to burnish his legacy by writing puff pieces about him if he were to withdraw.
Public trust in the media is at a record low. Just 32% of Americans tell Gallup that they trust the mass media“a fair amount” or “a great deal” to fairly and accurately report the news. That’s the lowest level in 52 years.
The greatest threat to the media’s power as sovereign comes from new media: social media. Today, adults under the age of 30 are nearly as likely to trust information from social media as from legacy news media.
While Facebook and Twitter may not have been responsible for the rise of Donald Trump — most political scientists believe he won the Republican nomination and the presidency through the debates — both the deep state and the news media view social media as an existential threat.
In response, the news media have demanded censorship of social media.
Since Elon Musk bought X and laid off most of its censorship staff, the news media have demanded that Musk bend to their will, with little to no effect. Indeed, this effort has only led Musk to retaliate by throttling links to external websites.
While there was always Fox News and the Murdoch empire, the news media as a whole has been characterized by homogeneity and conformity. Social media platforms, podcasters, and other independent media may not strip the press of its status as sovereign, but they will fragment and broaden it. The result should be a wider range of approved discussions.
If Biden bows out of the race, it will be a victory for the media but a temporary one. By waiving away Biden’s mental incapacity until it could no longer do so, the media has suffered another blow to its credibility, greater even than its Russian collusion and Hunter Biden conspiracy theories.
One of the most viral stories of the last few days is Olivia Nuzzi’s for New York Magazine. Titled “The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden,” the article’s subheadline is, “The president’s mental decline was like a dark family secret for many elite supporters.”
Now that its bias is openly admitted, the media’s influence may decline further. The media may be the secret ruler of America for now. But its changing nature and its diminishing credibility could rapidly change its status, allowing a new sovereign to emerge.
The Media Are Dead! Long Live The Media!
It’s clear that the media is not respecting proper boundaries. They are inappropriately acting as though they are one and the same as the president of the United States, even writing his withdrawal speech for him. And they are acting like the delegates for the Democratic Party, deciding who should replace him.
But these are also signs of desperation. The media has lost control. Biden is not doing what they want him to do. All they can offer him are promises to burnish his legacy by writing puff pieces about him if he were to withdraw.
Public trust in the media is at a record low. Just 32% of Americans tell Gallup that they trust the mass media“a fair amount” or “a great deal” to fairly and accurately report the news. That’s the lowest level in 52 years.
The greatest threat to the media’s power as sovereign comes from new media: social media. Today, adults under the age of 30 are nearly as likely to trust information from social media as from legacy news media.
While Facebook and Twitter may not have been responsible for the rise of Donald Trump — most political scientists believe he won the Republican nomination and the presidency through the debates — both the deep state and the news media view social media as an existential threat.
In response, the news media have demanded censorship of social media.
Since Elon Musk bought X and laid off most of its censorship staff, the news media have demanded that Musk bend to their will, with little to no effect. Indeed, this effort has only led Musk to retaliate by throttling links to external websites.
While there was always Fox News and the Murdoch empire, the news media as a whole has been characterized by homogeneity and conformity. Social media platforms, podcasters, and other independent media may not strip the press of its status as sovereign, but they will fragment and broaden it. The result should be a wider range of approved discussions.
If Biden bows out of the race, it will be a victory for the media but a temporary one. By waiving away Biden’s mental incapacity until it could no longer do so, the media has suffered another blow to its credibility, greater even than its Russian collusion and Hunter Biden conspiracy theories.
One of the most viral stories of the last few days is Olivia Nuzzi’s for New York Magazine. Titled “The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden,” the article’s subheadline is, “The president’s mental decline was like a dark family secret for many elite supporters.”
Now that its bias is openly admitted, the media’s influence may decline further. The media may be the secret ruler of America for now. But its changing nature and its diminishing credibility could rapidly change its status, allowing a new sovereign to emerge.
KARMA BABY!!
After 4 years of complete WEAPONIZATION of the government by Biden, democrats, and the fake news press in order to tear President Trump down and keep him off the ballot, he is STRONGER THAN EVER and Biden is being run out of the White House. I LOVE IT!!! Dr. Ronny Jackson
Facists thugs of the day --
.jpg)
www.mpbonline.org
Only days after guilty verdicts, Judge rescinds all charges against attorney Jill Jefferson
Mississippi Public Broadcasting is MPB. Mississippi is Our Mission. Get the latest news on Tate Reeves, the Election and updates on Television, Radio and Online
www.mpbonline.org
Watch them all lie and lie and lie and lie some more. What a bunch of espolas
rumble.com
Adam Schiff Calls On Biden To Take A Cognitive Test
Rep Adam Schiff: "I'd be happy if both the president and Donald Trump took cognitive tests."
rumble.com
Espolaism is very real folks. They cheat and lie and then call you the liar. Pray for France
Pray for the USA and pray for the earth. France cheated and is now forcing insane rules to enter Paris. This is what cheaters do, call a snap election. Macron has announced that Paris will be cordoned off and under lockdown on July 14. It will not be possible to enter the heart of the city and the parade without the vaccination passport.
Pray for the USA and pray for the earth. France cheated and is now forcing insane rules to enter Paris. This is what cheaters do, call a snap election. Macron has announced that Paris will be cordoned off and under lockdown on July 14. It will not be possible to enter the heart of the city and the parade without the vaccination passport.T is on the Epstein list.