crumbsroom wrote:

Now do I think it's illegal? No. Was she hiding her identity during her testiomy? No. But do I think it was a weird way to format their headline? Kinda.

I understand, and the headline is funny in that sense.  I could paraphrase a quote about how the call of history is nonconsensual, but the fact of the matter is that now she is in the history books.  Like the janitor in Watergate.  But qualitatively, by dent of the circumstances of her fame, she will be a force for good.

Fair enough, BBC is off the hook, but I was definitely including Trump and his team in the wrongdoing (I recall reading that Trump personally released people's private info but maybe that was sloppy reporting idk). So they're not off the hook, are they? Isn't that illegal? For Giuliani et al to release their private info? 

Also, I had not seen a picture of Jeffery Clark prior to today's hearing.



Or seen here, the one on the left...

[img]https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/927e49de-d627-4e83-b783-9da849dd9b80/dd80c1e-4c8558d8-debc-42c3-8c41-c95880d2a57f.png/v1/fill/w_1280,h_957,strp/quality_time_with_sven_and_stimpy_by_bravokrofski_dd80c1e-fullview.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9OTU3IiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvOTI3ZTQ5ZGUtZDYyNy00ZTgzLWI3ODMtOWRhODQ5ZGQ5YjgwXC9kZDgwYzFlLTRjODU1OGQ4LWRlYmMtNDJjMy04YzQxLWM5NTg4MGQyYTU3Zi5wbmciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.XUM9QALUaORrABYz6hKSM9v8p39798b-ohBN09LDhes[/img]

Jinnistan wrote:

I assume that we're all too stunned to cmment on yesterday's hearings.

But in an alternate timeline, Trump would have shown up at the Capitol to announce his presidency-for-life after having strangled his Secret Service detail.  Or something along those lines.

One of the pains of all this is that I still can't bring myself to be truly shocked by any of it. It really is a case of 'of course they knew they were armed' and 'of course he tried to strangle his secret service'.

But, yes, Hutchinson's testimony does feel like what has been very specifically needed to really drive home what a nightmare this president was, and what a forseeable nightmare January 6 was. It contains indelible details that can't help but haunt people who are honestly listening. And it's also tremendously easy to understand the gravity of (again, for those whose ears haven't fallen off their heads). This stuff is hard to abstract and turn into a 'nothing burger' (although I'm sure there will be more than enough attempts in right wing media, likely successful)

And yet, as obviously damning it all was,  I still can't help but tread cautiously emotionally, already aware there are always ways to deflect and distract by those who don't really want to reckon with any of this. While I already know there is a subset of the American population that is never ever ever going to truly acknowledge any wrongdoing when it comes to Trump, and who I was already well aware were a total lost cause years ago, I just struggle with how big or small that percentage is. Semi-rational, semi-literate, semi-human Trump supporters have gone a long way from reality to keep defending him at this point, and I think it is a long road back. It's possible they can absorb many more bucketfulls of this stuff before even considering turning back.

It does feel like Trump is getting hit though. Not cratered, as would be deserved, but certainly scuffed up and hopefully no longer returnable.

Jinnistan wrote:

 

As per usual, I think Stewart nails it.

My concerns about these Hutchinson revelations have been centered around the medias salivating around the juiciest morsels. The tantrums, the steering wheel, the strangling. These are obviously an important part of the fabric that makes the story as they yet again illustrate that particularly diseased brain of his. You know, the kind of brain that might think it is a good idea to overthrow the government with a pack of hobgoblin internet trailer trash. , And you also can't entirely blame the news from zeroing in on them, as they are fascinating as well as being a legit part of the story.

. But as usual, the media can't help but lose sight of what actually matters at the end of the day (what did Trump know, what was he planning, what can be proven about either) and so all of these scandalous moments just end up camoflauging what is important. And, as has been proven a hundred million times already, this is the kind of overgrowth Trump flourishes in. If we are having a conversation about what an unfit cunt he is, everyone already knows and no who needs to be persuaded cares.

But on top of that, and most concerning, is how these kinds of stories have been proven to be really easy to dial back in their severity (who doesn't throw the occassional plate, especially when you've had an election stolen from you...if he really strangled his secret service, where are the bruises........you know, the type of dumb yet effective obfuscations they've been running for the last fucking six years). And what happens when you remove some of the oxygen from the more hysterical elements of the story? Sadly, it doesn't illuminate the real story. The real story ends up dying with the tabloid horseshit.

I do take encouragement that Stewart feels somewhat similarly, and unlike me who is still feeling pessimistic, manages to have some optimisism that Trump may finally be starting to take on water. Well, as optimistic as you can be when De Santis is standing waiting in the wings.

But De Santis is besides the point. All the matters at this point is Trump at least being further isolated from relevance. Whether this be indictment (lol) or simple excommunication, this is what is essential for me to gain any kind of shred of hope.
 

Jinnistan wrote:

crumbsroom wrote:

My concerns about these Hutchinson revelations have been centered around the medias salivating around the juiciest morsels. The tantrums, the steering wheel, the strangling. These are obviously an important part of the fabric that makes the story as they yet again illustrate that particularly diseased brain of his. You know, the kind of brain that might think it is a good idea to overthrow the government with a pack of hobgoblin internet trailer trash. , And you also can't entirely blame the news from zeroing in on them, as they are fascinating as well as being a legit part of the story.

. But as usual, the media can't help but lose sight of what actually matters at the end of the day (what did Trump know, what was he planning, what can be proven about either) and so all of these scandalous moments just end up camoflauging what is important. And, as has been proven a hundred million times already, this is the kind of overgrowth Trump flourishes in. If we are having a conversation about what an unfit cunt he is, everyone already knows and no who needs to be persuaded cares.

But on top of that, and most concerning, is how these kinds of stories have been proven to be really easy to dial back in their severity (who doesn't throw the occassional plate, especially when you've had an election stolen from you...if he really strangled his secret service, where are the bruises........you know, the type of dumb yet effective obfuscations they've been running for the last fucking six years). And what happens when you remove some of the oxygen from the more hysterical elements of the story? Sadly, it doesn't illuminate the real story. The real story ends up dying with the tabloid horseshit.

I once again watched the Sunday morning news shows this morning to get a read on how the mainstream networks are digesting this week's news, and it's both informative and depressing, as always.  Predominent focus is on the "lunge" incident, both in terms of pushing the sensationalism of it and in terms of pushing back against the testimony (hearsay, sources say otherwise, etc.).  Also an inordinate amount of time discussing the "optics" of possibly prosecuting a former president (as opposed to considering the optics of presidential impunity) and basically handicapping the Vegas line on whether or not it will happen.  (The news networks' emulation of sports broadcasting is a huge reason for their growing irrelevance.)

But, as Stewart says, what about the purpose?  The answer to that is clear for anyone who can see the forest for the trees: it was to stop the election certification.  All roads lead to that desired outcome.  That should be the ultimate focus of the coverage, and ideally every single segment on this story should end by hammering that clarity home.  There was not a single mention, on any of the major three networks' shows, of the scoop in my previous post about the Oath Keepers, despite it being soundly sourced in a respected publication, much less about the adequetely sourced facts of their association with Stone and Flynn, or perhaps the bigger news from Hutchinson's testimony that Mark Meadows had contacted both Stone and Flynn on Jan. 5 in private.  Or the more relevant aspects of her testimony being the ominous signals - "things could get very very bad", "don't go up to the Capitol", etc.  This all seems pretty sensational too when put into logical context, all of this is pretty germane to why Trump was so irate at not being able to join the rioters at the Capitol, which should be the significant question that apparently no one in corporate media is willing or interested to ask.  Instead, Woodchuck Todd has the nuts to ask whether or not Trump was even aware of the alternate elector scheme because, sure, literally everyone working on his behalf must have been deliberately keeping it a secret from him.  But the more important question: what's the over/under on actual criminal charges?  Because I got fifty that can't wait to ride on red.

All of this seems to be very on brand.

Which brings me back to the question of, what the fuck are these people doing? How do they not know what a disservice they are doing to the information they should be supplying us with.  Is it really just a cynical grab to collect eyeballs? Are they inept. Or have they honestly just lost their way and they just think this is what news is now? Because maybe this is what journalism has become. I'd honestly really like to know what they teach in universities and colleges about how to produce news for the television. Maybe no one just gives a shit any longer.

I remember twenty years ago, passively watching Crossfire every afternoon with my grandmother. Kind of hating everyone that was on that show (but at least being somewhat entertained by Carville). And then Jon Stewart showing up, and doing what we all know he did, and me just thinking 'well, that was a bit of overkill'. I just saw Crossfire as an easy gateway into considering political debate. How could this possibly be harming America? Surely, there are still more sober places for people to find the real news. They aren't seriously taking everything they learn from these four boobs?

But, as usual, Jon Stewart was about as prescient as it gets. He was sending up the warning flares two decades ago in hopes of tempering this horrible kind of discourse that was fomenting at the time. I'm sure even he couldn't have imagined just how atrocious its ultimately become, and how its completely infiltrated almost all televised news, and an awful lot that is written in newspapers as well. Not even to mention the trash we come across on the internet.

So this has been a long rot coming. Maybe they simply just don't know anymore what they are supposed to be doing. Maybe they think grabbing at the juiciest soundbites is the only way to get America to pay attention. Maybe they are right. But it wasn't always this way, so what the hell has happened here. Why is everybody and everything so horrible.

I commend your bravery for watching that shit. I think it is probably of some importance to realize how the ship has stlll not righted itself. That its just as bad as ever. Even after places like CNN try to pretend they are becoming more responsible by retiring the term 'bombshell' (which seems just as simplistic of a fix as their approach to informing the public is)

crumbsroom wrote:

I commend your bravery for watching that shit. I think it is probably of some importance to realize how the ship has stlll not righted itself. That its just as bad as ever.

I just dip my toes in sometimes.  I cut the cable news chord for good in 2016.  I've never really cared for it, but sometimes (elections, for ex) I would get sucked back in, only to realize that I wasn't getting a whole lot of information I didn't already have.  Then I'd start watching specifically to see what they weren't saying or talking about, which can be informative in other ways, but exhausting for a daily routine.  Going to a strict print-only news diet is similar to what I hear about people who cut carbs - I feel leaner, more nimble, less sluggish, fewer (emotional) crashes, and a lot more energy to be spent elsewhere.  So when I'll monitor the news coverage from the outside (Mediaite is a good site for collecting the day's cable news controversies) I can do so without immersing myself in petroleum and pharmaceutical ads.

And speaking of Jon Stewart, he had this great clip a few months back which reminds me of two things: how grateful I am to have been off the cable sauce during the Trump presidency (which would have made a nigh-intolerable period even more impossible), and how badly we missed and needed a Jon Stewart during that era.  The problem with the folks that came after the Stewart/Colbert pinnacle is that all of them - Noah, Bee, Oliver, Minhaj, Wolf, Meyers - basically neglected Stewart/Colbert's prime genius of media literacy satire and instead steered directly into soapboxing pedantry.  The Trump era is when we needed to call out "truthiness" the most, and they dropped the ball.




edit: Also worth catching Stewart's video on "How Newsrooms Blame the Audience", which suggests that news media is necessarily dumbed down because people are dumb and that's just how they like their dumbness reinforced in a perpetual feedback of dumb.

Last edited by Jinnistan (7/05/2022 5:43 pm)

This is gonna be me ranting about something that's not that important, but one of the more inane things I've seen leftists embrace is that Jon Stewart's complacent centrist comedy, particularly The Rally to Restore Sanity, is somehow responsible for Trump. Not, you know, the actual real world factors that contributed to his rise (I.e. people voting for him), but the comedian who tried to bring some level of perspective to the political landscape in the prior decade. These fucks will blame anybody except those actually responsible.

Jinnistan wrote:

To bring it all home, just recently, within a couple of weeks, I saw someone refer to Stewart as a "neoliberal".  I think it was because he once had John McCain on his show.

My father has been entertaining this nonsense recently. I suppose Stewart has said a few things that weren't in lock step with whatever he thinks 'his team' is supposed to be saying, so according to my dad 'he's gone kinda right wing'. Which is just about as idiotic a read as one can have of Stewart.

And it's especially annoying when my father isn't even terribly left wing on principal. He is all over the place himself in what he believes in, issue to issue. And yet, if someone on TV strays in even the slightest way, he's tar and feathering them.

So even fathers are super dumb in this awful world were living in.

Last edited by crumbsroom (7/05/2022 9:36 pm)