Boring news cycle deals blow to partisan media
axios.com
axios.com
Usually when I see that claim being made, it's more an indication that A. The partisan media is loathe to show what's happening, and B. They want to give their readers/viewers a plausible excuse for looking the other way.
Media is based on retaining your attention. If they claim news is slow, there is something they are holding above their well-being. Figure out what it is, and start looking harder there.
Now that the current administration makes more planned policy decisions and announces them through normal media channels, the news is more boring. But I like boring when it comes to government policy decisions. I definitely read the news less often with this administration since there are rarely any surprising announcements and even when there are, I know that they've been vetted with others in the administration and aren't a snap decision based on his mood.
Being boring doesn't mean that the news is not important.
Some sort of conspiracy that involves both parties and so well disguised that nobody knows what it is?
1. Left-side, Biden is pretty concerning - there's some serious mental issues showing regularly and undeniably, and while they try to display him as a moderate, his policies are far to the left of even those adopted by Obama. Avoiding coverage of this helps preserve the claim of moderation.
2. Right-side, very few elected officials are being reasonable representatives, and most aim for social media clout over action. Coverage of this would throw a serious wrench in the GOP engine, and lead to greater voter ire. Without Trump to uphold, there's no longer cover for these reps, so avoiding coverage maintains the claim that the representatives are properly representing.
Bit that's a lie: axios is not neutral (are there neutral objective news agencies today?) and there's a lot happening right now. Gathered by pieces from various biased sources, at the very least we have 3 big controversies: the Texas border problem (a big problem, actually), the well known ideology is invading military, schools and gov agencies, and the mysterious "test ballots" in the NYC elections that would cast some doubts if the story gets more publicity. So yeah, the party is going on.
Early in his presidency, Axios was basically a Trump backchannel (see https://newrepublic.com/article/142441/axios-donald-trump-ma..., etc.).
The Media Bias Chart puts it very slightly to the left. You have to take that with a grain of salt, and I'd say that the error bars from the methodology would place it pretty much dead center.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
Of course the Media Bias Chart is itself potentially biased, but have a look at it yourself, and I suspect it will at least roughly correspond to your understanding of the left-right spectrum.
If Axios was biased in favor of Trump at the time that article was written, it no longer seems to be true. I think it's a stretch to call it "moderately left", but it's almost certainly not far right.
I think they might be conflating access to sources (and thus the stories) which was/is a big driver for Axios.
Was founded by the most valuable Politco Playbook reporters who have probably the deepest connections in the swamp. And it's standard practice to leak what's either good for you personally or your boss' agenda.
The fear-based rhetoric of Newsmax and Breitbart needs an opposite and equal villain, someone to really point the finger at say, see, it's them, they're the real baddies! But this opposite and equal villain doesn't exist. Workers' rights and unions are pretty basic concepts in most western countries; the US is one of the exceptions where such things are commonly vilified.
Worse, portraying both of these two sides of American politics as opposite and equal leads to more moderate people talking about false middle grounds. Example: "maybe we shouldn't put kids in cages but we don't want wild open borders that allows every Mexican criminal to come in! So, we still should be tough on immigration, but not that tough!" This apparent "middle ground" ends up being just more of the same fear-based rhetoric of xenophobia.
How does this get characterized as a blow to partisan media, unless the categories are misleading and the “left-leaning” category is the least partisan?
Is the summary of the effect a lie, or are the category names the lie?
Bring me back to the days when a tan suit caused a media storm.
> A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true. - Martin Luther King
I just wish people could break out their "tribal" mentality about it. There's serious issues that need to be addressed.
For that matter, how about the full 4 years? Perhaps there was a matching build up leading up to the election.
Could use more context.
I don’t recall anything like the Trump years during the Clinton -> Obama years.
What we’re seeing is just how much many people hated Trump.
On Biden Admin, how can you tell the difference between “there is just no news” and “we don’t want to attack him”?
My education included little history between the civil war in the 1860s and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But I think that the history of that era is essential for understanding our current politics, as in many ways we are reenacting the same social forces that happened exactly a century ago in reaction to ending slavery.
Like him or hate him, I always knew what Trump was thinking. He was very open. I wish Biden were as well. When he speaks, Biden can barely get a word out of his extremely scripted speeches. Trump had a unique way of speaking, but he was always pretty clear, save for a few exceptions.
Psaki seems to always obscure any question asked. For example, she has repeatedly blamed the GOP for pushing the defunding of police, which is such an epic amount of gaslighting, I'm surprised she wasn't laughed at.
Moreover, it was pretty clear that during the Trump administration, the media saw its role as one of antagonism to 'get to the truth'. During Biden's administration, they've dropped this pretense completely. Instead, they just repeat the white house's messaging without much critical analysis. This is exactly what they did during Obama. And its exactly what they did during Bush. If you recall correctly, during Bush's term, they repeated his lies so often that they sent us to a useless war in the middle east.
This is why I say that the 'return to normalcy' is opaqueness in governance and a return to the media protecting the ruling class. This isn't about party; it's not even about theory of governance. It's about having a president whose views on issues he doesn't articulate directly to me, and a media establishment that is quite happy to repeat lies from democrats or republicans, as long as they have the right pedigree.
I basically am back to my pre-2016 involvement with politics which is “I don’t care”. This os why I will never support far-right or far-left politics: too frothy and requires paying attention.
I dont want to pay attention. I just want things to work and continue working.
Have you considered that you've been lied to by CNN? You say you went there 'to see what a shitshow the trump admin was' (to paraphrase), but it seems you just went searching for media that already fit your foregone conclusion.
The system is working as designed. We are stuck in grid lock. Everything will resolve _somehow_ eventually... how it resolves doesn't matter to me honestly, I'm just a passenger on this ship.