« Ataturk Airport - 29 June 2016 | Main | "We talked about his grandchildren" Loretta Lynch »

29 June 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Larry Kart et al

I do think that there is some measure of snobbery about Trump gross behavior and coarseness, but the main thing seems to me to be the belief on the part of your former colleagues to believe that they should control the process by influencing the people. pl



"Faux populist". Yeah, he's just been saying the same things on trade and immigration since the eighties but he's a fake.

lmbo some of you goofs.


The grotesque and incompetent invasion and occupation of Iraq was the creation of the elite and sold to a hurting and shocked populace by a full-court press of the propaganda apparatus. It was only "our" war in the sense that it was foisted on us. And not resisted by the calculating and corrupt like Hillary Clinton. "I made a mistake" in voting for the Iraq invasion is a disingenuous and unacceptable excuse for her warmongering, which continued through her Sec State term to her policies today.



As far Sanders supporters are concerned, the reaction (at least in the groups I frequent) to MSM attacks on Trump are NOT "well, unfair, but needs must to get Mussolini defeated." We've seem (we're seeing) this wild, patrician indifference to democratic norms (I don't say "journalistic norms" because I used to be one, and no such thing) applied to Sanders (Corbyn too in UK), so we're very unamused seeing it applied to Trump. Whole thing in fact acts in reverse, making us wonder whether Trump might mean some of what he says after all, since so many of the worst people are lining up against him.

In this sense the Trump/Brexit parallel is rather exact. For an under-5 minute summary, I'd recommend SST readers take a moment to watch, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg


Ok, that's why.

I wished for a second it was the institution I stumbled across sometimes in 2011. But it isn't and I didn't save a link, neither make some notes. Observing media has become quite competitive between left to right nowadays. ... But the institution I stumbled across did not rely on any type of work-outsourcing.


"The data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in collecting and coding news content. Media Tenor’s coding of print and television news stories is conducted by trained staff members who visually evaluate the content. Computer-based coding is less reliable and is not used in Media Tenor’s research. Coding of individual actors (e.g., presidential candidates) is done on a comprehensive basis, capturing all statements of more than five lines (print) or five seconds (TV) of coverage for a given actor."

Media Tenor, Creating Perception:

But interesting task force network:

Also interesting. As far as I can see, there seems to be only one publication that isn't linked under publications. And also the only one that deals with "objectivity". But that's not exactly the paper I would like to read again. At least it seems. ... Why is it still listed? As a warning?


Reedy, Margie. Cable News Goes to War: Is Objectivity a Casualty? 2003

site:http://shorensteincenter.org/research-publications/papers/ objectivity


Yes, doesn't look worth taking a closer look. Although maybe. Simply not me, since my time is limited.

I got only a slice of the news, it seems. Not from a comparative level, only concerning Trump.

Larry Kart

It's their bosses (or some of them) who "believe that they should control the process by influencing the people." My sense is that my former colleagues and their descendents are a) fairly cynical about their own, or their bosses, ability to do that; and b) are far more invested in their own selves/identities within the widely shared identity of their group. Yes, this can dovetail to some degree with attempts to control the process by influencing the people, but these attempts I think are significantly modified and perhaps even defused by the "measure of snobbery" among the group to which you accurately pointed. In fact, one could argue that for a good many journalists of whatever background, the right to think of oneself in somewhat snobbish terms (one is, after all, by virtual fiat on the "inside" of a good many things) -- this in relation to the people (or "people) one ostensibly addresses-- is the defining term of one's personal contract with the profession.

One sees this at a slight distance from the media's anti-Trump campaign in all the handwringing/fingerwagging journalistic assessments of Brexit, in which the actual phrase "these people" or worse is often used to characterize Brexit supporters -- this as the writers ponder the failure to effectively influence the Brexit supporters to vote otherwise. My point is that you can't by and large successfully influence people for whom you have implicit contempt -- people of all stripes and backgrounds pretty readily detect that attitude and don't care for it one bit.

On a personal note, I came to journalism rather late in life, in my mid-30s, and thus was not that susceptible to its intoxicating blend of romance and cynicism, but I do recall how seductive it was to be able regularly introduce myself as "Larry Kart from the Chicago Tribune" and find tha otherwise closed doors would often swing open. One knew what the underlying tradeoff was -- access in return for publicity or the like -- but to feel that one's own personal doubts about button-holing the powerful and famous could be erased simply by flashing one's journalistic credentials....


I do have problems with his self-celabratory poses. Maybe as a result I have problems with his voice? Not always but sometimes.

How do you like Trump's British voice-over:

Would it be anti-American, if I started to ponder if America could be the most perspicuous winner versus looser society? One side no doubt is the American Dream. Ok, alternatively, a winner takes it all society?

Babak Makkinejad

News of Immigrants - Is this Justice?


Tyler: You will have a field day with this one.



Yes, besides the site you specifically mentioned, links to posts from Sic Semper Tyrannis often appear at Naked Capitalism (as an aside, also posts from b's Moon of Alabama, too). I see posters from that site often putting in an appearance here, obviously attracted by the solidity of the analysis offered by Col. Lang and his guest posters.

I value Col. Lang's brand of conservatism, which stands in marked contrast to that bastardized swill offered up by the "cuckservatives", unworthy pretenders to the conservative tradition.

As you might surmise from my posting name, I accept the value of states' rights under our federal structure of governance. This doctrine is troublesome to those who would arrogate all powers to the federal government, and who also not so secretly wish to enforce cultural uniformity across the nation in furtherance of mandating their vision of the bounds of "acceptable thought and discourse". My, how very totalitarian of them on both counts, don't you think? This is not so very different in spirit from the response of the EU elites to the Brexit vote, and the rumblings of discontents from citizens of various European nations under their authoritarian sway. To that point, I drop in this link to a post over at CounterPunch by Diana Johnstone:


Rousseau gone off the rails, it would seem to me, in its embrace of social engineering by Those Who Know Best.


I read the article that you linked, and I'm not much persuaded. Here's why:

- The article appears to count stories as negative for Hillary when the articles say that Bernie is doing better than expected and Hillary worse. That's mere fact, not negative reporting.

- The article conflates coverage during primaries with Hillary's current "nominee-in-fact" status. The article, which draws data from a period beginning in early 2015, says that there has been "heavier accountability for the Democratic nominee", based on reporting before she was the nominee. Even the Kennedy School can shade things a little.

The article focuses on negative issues coverage. One of the strongest legitimate arguments against Hillary has been her questionable judgment and she and Bill's record. I used to like Bill a lot, and still find him charming.

Near the end, the article says that the tide of coverage is shifting in Hillary's favor since it became Clinton versus Trump. Yes. Massively so.

From the article: "the greatest asset as a candidate will be her opponent." Sad thing to say about someone who's been in the public eye for a quarter century.

The article says that there is now a concerted media effort to debunk Trump's lies and do you bunk some of his statements. Good. I'm not aware of any substantial present effort to scrutinize Hillary's circumstances or record. For example, a comparison with other presidential candidates who were under criminal investigation while they were running, (Eugene Debs ran while in prison, but he was a socialist.) Or the extent of influence peddling in re the Clinton foundation.



"20/800 vision" means I see at 20 feet what others normally see at 800 feet.. without glasses or contacts, I'm legally blind because everything beyond 2 feet is a blur (can't even read the dashboard or speedometer if I was driving without contacts/glasses)

Back then in the 1980s, you needed better than 20/70 vision to be a jet pilot & PRC, LASIK surgery was not yet approved for Air Force pilots (nowadays, PRC,LASIK is only approved for Air Force pilots if done at certain military's premier hospitals & you are allowed up to 20/200 vision)

Here's the latest requirements for Air Force pilots & crew:


But it is not about nationalism, but about sovereignty.
Quite different.
Will you say that swiss are nationalist ?
Probably not.


I would say that Hilary Clinton is a cross between Goldman Sachs and Dick Cheney, but that´s redundant: Dick Cheney is a cross between Goldman Sachs and himself.

Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney v 2.0

Can´t get much worse than that.

C Webb

I always figured you as being more pro-peace than anti-war.

SoCal Rhino

My experience, and I am of a newer vintage than our host, is that the ground has shifted during my lifetime and most who share my party affiliation have views I don't remotely share. Left and right don't really describe much these days when no monarchists or Marxists are to be found, and libertarians are not anarchists but monopolists in Silicon Valley living in fortresses of patent law.

When they left home on the Mayflower, signed the Declaration, fought in the revolution, I don't think my ancestors were left or right, but I guess they were pretty radical. As are anyone today who attempts to see the world as it is, and find this committee a tonic, or provides the salon in which it congregates.



Thanks for the link. There is a similarity between the votes in the USA for Donald Trump and for a Brexit in the UK. Colonel Lang is correct there is a media propaganda campaign ongoing. Labeling these voters as racists is part of it. Also, there are the omissions. The dots aren’t connected by the media. This is not a “black helicopter” liberal conspiracy although there are the global elites who are running things who have utter contempt for workers, freeloaders and democracy. Rather, it is the reversion back to the old fashion scam of the aristocracy and their 5% savants milking the little people of everything they have. “Another day older and deeper in debt. I owe my soul to the company store.” The decline of the middle class will continue until they refuse to take it anymore. This is not right or left issue except in the sense that a return of FDR’s New Deal Capitalism and a government by and for the people would be less violent than a revolution like the earlier ones in England, France or Russia.


Mr Kart,

...I know this beast and/or these beasts and its/their inclinations and appetites; I lived and worked among them for almost thirty years. The troops in the field will follow orders from above up to a point, but eventually the scorpion will sting to death the frog (or was it the rabbit?) on whose back he was crossing the river because, as the scorpion said to the frog or rabbit as they both began to drown, "It's in my nature."

Since I know of your background in journalism at the venerable and conservative newspaper in Chicago, you bring up an interesting point of view.

I am most interested to hear from you a narrative of a specific event from the past.


Couldn't have put it better myself.
The DNC is committing institutional suicide, having pretzelized the nomination rules to ensure Hillary's coronation. Hearing the AP call the Dem nomination for Hillary -- on the very night before the California primary! -- was my 'Rubicon'. The AP and the MSM should have been hauled into court for election tampering; their timing was a manipulative disgrace that only solidified my sense that 'the fix is in'.

As someone upthread said, this is an election like no other.


For a Trump/Brexit parallel see the Archdruid


"..sold to a hurting and shocked populace". You are breaking my heart. This, to a people that took Pearl Harbour, relatively speaking, in our stride and went to work. "foisted" on us indeed. Anyone with a hour to kill on google, at that time, could have been provided with about 100 reasons why this war was nonsense and bound to end poorly. Indeed, in the precise way it ended up. The division of Iraq into warring sects. And what this "division" was going to mean for Iraq's neighbors...and a wider world. Like Brando said to Steiger in On the Waterfront, 'it was you Charlie, it was you'.

It was "us". And the sooner we admit it...and it is always terribly painful and traumatic to admit it (you have a lot of veterans out there, and their families, saying, 'what did I suffer for? This result?', the better. We are not only NOT going to admit it, we are most likely going to validate--make President-- one of the most war like, and cynical, supporters of the Iraq War. Ponder the implications of that breath of denial. A nation cannot suffer a strategic defeat, on this scale, our worse defeat perhaps, in history, and then turn around and reward the political class that brought us the defeat. Not without paying a significant price.


I'm at the point that it wouldn't bother me if Trump beat Clinton. I'm voting for Sanders or Jill Stein. Someone needs to tell Trump that if he picks Newt Gingrich as his running mate he has no chance of victory. My mother left the GOP because of that clown.


That's a line from one of my favorite Tennessee Ernie Ford songs, well-remembered from seeing him perform it on the black and white TV back when I was just a wee little guy.


True then, true now.

Larry Kart

Probably the most egregious specific journalistic event of this sort that I witnessed at the Trib (though it's a bit outside the political realm we've been talking about) was its multi-part series crusade against Robert Gallo, Nobel Prize-winning discoverer of the AIDs virus. Mounted by a former NYT investigative reporter named John Crewdson (based on appearance and demeanor, his nickname was "Blutto"), this crusade (which The Trib hoped would win a Pulitzer prize; it was the most extensive series the paper had ever run) claimed that Gallo had not discovered the virus but instead had stolen it from a team of French scientists who also had been working on the problem. Wthout doubt, Gallo (to mix metaphors) had sharp elbows and cut some corners, but that's pretty much the way it often is in science (see the behavior of Watson and Crick re: DNA for one of many examples).

Two of my friends at the Trib were veteran science writers (one of them later would win a Pulitzer himself for his articles on gene therapy), and they urgently tried to warn the editors in charge (including the actual editor of the paper) that Crewdson's anti-Gallo crusade was in error about some key facts and also more or less embarrassing to anyone who knew how high-powered scientists tended to operate (though the series also was in tune with any number of anti-science, anti-bureaucratic, anti-academic bees that long had buzzed around in the paper's ideological bonnet). These veteran science writers were then told that they should shut up on this subject or they would or lose their jobs. In the event, Crewdson's series did not win a Pulitzer.

Oddly enough, this episode dovetailed with an earlier one that also involved AIDs-related matters. The Trib had recently imported (this was in the early 1980s, IIRC) several supposedly top-notch reporters (e.g. Crewdson) and editors from Abe Rosenthal's New York Times. A hardcore homophobe, Rosenthal had decreed when the AIDS epidemic (or what you will) hit that this was a "gay disease" and would get minimal coverage from the NYT because (this was not spoken of this openly of course) these immoral people are getting what they deserved for all their immoral behavior. Others, however, saw the advent of AIDS again, in more or less medical terms, as a burgeoning epidemic whose dimensions were not yet known or knowable, and felt that it should be covered accordingly.

In any case, whatever the Trib's pre-existing ideology in such social-moral areas was, it enthusiastically adopted the Rosenthal "let's turn our backs on these perverts; they're getting what they deserve and good riddance" approach to AIDS coverage that its newly arrived former NYT reporters and editors had brought with them. The particular incident I have in mind involved the then editor of the features section. Randy Shilts' pathbreaking book on the AIDS epidemic "And the Band Played On" was on the best-seller list, Shilts was on a tour to promote it, and the Trib's features editor set up an interview with Shilts, which would have been SOP for the author of almost any book that was leaping off the shelves and also had a clear-cut newsy aspect to it. The features editor was then told from above that the interview would have to be cancelled because the Trib was not going to give more space to this vile topic than it absolutely had to, especially to the author of a book that among other things pointed out how much of the media and many public officials had sat on their hands or worse when the facts of AIDS began to emerge. The cancellation of the Shilts interview stood.

I'm sure that there are many more overtly political journalistic events stored somewhere in my memory of my 25 or so years at the Trib, but these are the two that come to mind right now and the details of which I can vouch for directly -- because of my friendship with the science writers and the features editor who were involved. Further, what they told me about what was going on in these instances, they told me when these things were going on -- not well after they happened.


I don't understand people in effect electing Clinton because they can't bring themselves to vote for her opponent. This does not make sense to me.

Am assuming (wishfully thinking) the Newt business is just media vassals fucking with we the people and/or with Trump. Expect someone to name Tom Cotton just to see what he says.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad